 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Anandan v. Singapore Airlines Ltd.4/5/2005
to submit to the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts and to waive the statute of limitations, it is likely that it would have expressly included those conditions in the order, had appellants asked it to do so. But there is no language in the section 410.30 requiring the court to devise conditions without any request or suggestion from the plaintiffs, or to impose conditions on its own motion.
One of the authorities upon which appellants rely to support their theory of mandatory, sua sponte imposition of conditions is Baris v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc. (5th Cir. 1991) 932 F.2d 1540, cert. denied, 502 U.S. 963 (Baris). There, the federal appeals court stated that "courts must take measures, as part of their dismissals in forum non conveniens cases, to ensure that defendants will not attempt to evade the jurisdiction of the foreign courts. Such measures often include agreements between the parties to litigate in another forum, to submit to service of process in that jurisdiction, to waive the assertion of any limitations defenses, to agree to discovery, and to agree to the enforceability of the foreign judgment. [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 1551, italics added.)
Thus, under authority that appellants wish us to follow, an agreement by the defendant is sufficient protection for the plaintiff. (Baris, supra, 932 F.2d at p. 1551.) In their moving papers, respondents agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts and to waive the statute of limitations. In addition, respondents Boeing and Goodrich agreed to make available any evidence in its possession as required by the Singapore court, and to pay any damages awarded, subject to their right of appeal. Respondents have repeated these promises in their briefs on appeal.
We note that the Baris court also stated: "the [trial] court is given the discretion to determine the conditions of dismissal or to determine that the dismissal should be unconditional under the circumstances [citation]." (Baris, supra, 932 F.2d at p. 1551, italics added.) Nowhere in Baris, or in other published authorities cited by appellants, is there articulated a mandatory duty to impose conditions sua sponte. (E.g., Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 750, 762; Campbell v. Parker-Hannifin Corp. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1534, 1540.)
For the moment, and only for purposes of this discussion, we shall agree with appellants that section 410.30 imposed a sua sponte duty on the trial court to determine what conditions might be just, and a sua sponte duty to impose them. It was apparent from the trial court's tentative ruling that it had not considered conditions on its own, but that appellants were given the opportunity to suggest them.
On January 7, 2004, upon pronouncing its tentative ruling and the reasons for it, the trial court stated that its ruling would be the final order on January 30, 2004, unless "anyone feels they . . . have something that is significant . . . that hasn't already been said, [and if so] I'll certainly be glad to receive it. . . . I will dismiss as opposed to staying unless there's some advantage to staying rather than dismissing. I want to give you the opportunity to, either side, to get an appellate review of whatever I come up with."
When the parties next appeared in the trial court on February 26, 2004, no final order had yet been entered. When respondents' counsel asked if he should draft an order, the court replied that it would consider a proposed order, if counsel believed that the court's order was incorrect and required changes. The court also indicated that it would hold further hearing, if necessary.
A party who believes that there are errors in the trial court's findings, or necessar
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|