A motion to dismiss for inconvenient forum in California is the topic of this blog post.
A motion to dismiss for inconvenient forum in California should be filed before any answer or demurrer to avoid waiving the issue of personal jurisdiction.
Statutes authorizing a motion to dismiss for inconvenient forum in California.
A motion to dismiss for inconvenient forum in California is authorized by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure sections 410.30 and 418.10.
Code of Civil Procedure § 410.30, subdivision (a) states, “When a court upon motion of a party or its own motion finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.”
Code of Civil Procedure § 418.10 states in part:
“A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: … (2) To stay or dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum.”
Grounds for a motion to dismiss for inconvenient forum in California.
The most common grounds for a motion to dismiss for inconvenient forum in California would be that:
The Defendant is not a resident of California and never has been;
The State of California is a very inconvenient forum in that it would place an extremely heavy financial burden on the Defendant to have to travel to and from California, and
The great majority of the witnesses and evidence necessary for Defendant to adequately defend the action are located outside of California.
The United States Supreme Court describes two bases for limiting a state’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresidents. “The first recognizes limits on a state’s assertion of jurisdiction designed to ensure fairness to nonresident defendants. The second recognizes the mutual limits on the states’ sovereign power to exercise jurisdiction in a federal system.”
Burden of proof on a motion to dismiss for inconvenient forum in California.
The law is settled in California that the plaintiff has the burden of proof to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with California to justify jurisdiction.
The California Supreme Court has stated that personal jurisdiction can be either general or specific and that a nonresident defendant can be subject to the general jurisdiction of the State of California if his or her contacts in California are substantial, continuous and systematic. It is not necessary that the any specific cause of action alleged in a complaint be connected with the defendant’s business relationship to California as their contacts with California are so wide-ranging that they take the place of physical presence in California as a basis for jurisdiction.
The California Supreme Court holds that three requirements must be met before specific jurisdiction may be exercised: (a) defendant purposefully availed himself of the forum benefits, (b) the controversy is related to or arises from defendant’s contacts with California, and (c) the assertion of jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice.
A California Court of Appeal has stated in a published decision that a plaintiff opposing a motion to dismiss for inconvenient forum in California has the burden of establishing both (1) the defendant’s purposeful availment and (2) the lawsuit relates to the defendant’s contacts with California. If the plaintiff meets their burden the defendant must then show that
the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.
Filing a motion to dismiss for inconvenient forum in California is a good idea for any nonresident defendant that can demonstrate that they have never lived in California and have had no, or minimal contacts with California, and that can demonstrate that California is a seriously inconvenient forum.
Sample motion to dismiss for inconvenient forum in California for sale.
Attorneys or parties in California that would like to view a portion of a 12 page sample motion to dismiss for inconvenient forum in California containing brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service sold by the author can see below.
Over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation for sale.
To view more information on over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation visit: https://legaldocspro.myshopify.com/products
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale.
For licensed attorneys and law firms that need assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.
Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.
Follow Stan Burman on Google Plus at:
Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.
The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.