Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Forum Non Conveniens

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in staying this case under CCP 410.30 on the ground of forum non conveniens.  The complaint sought a declaration regarding the plaintiffs' duty to defend and indemnify defendants under various insurance policies for opioid litigation brought against defendants throughout the country.  There was already an on-going coverage action involving plaintiff and defendant… Read More

A defendant may challenge an order denying his forum non conveniens motion on an appeal from a final judgment even though CCP 418.10 allows a petition for writ of mandate from the order, just as it permits such a petition from denial of a motion to quash the summons for lack of personal jurisdiction.  But unlike the personal jurisdiction objection… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant's forum non conveniens motion, but did err in dismissing the action rather than merely staying it.  The suit was by residents of China against a California resident regarding alleged misuse of funds donated to the defendant's charitable foundation for his personal benefit.  China was an available forum.  It was… Read More

Plaintiff’s shareholder derivative action against a corporation's executives and auditor in California was properly dismissed on forum non-conveniens grounds since corporation’s by-laws included a forum selection clause in favor of Delaware and auditor had consented to jurisdiction in Delaware. Read More

Dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds affirmed in suit by Florida corporation against to residents of Mexico over contract to raise crops in Mexico; neither party was a California resident and Mexico had a greater interest in adjudicating the dispute.  Read More

In analyzing a defendant's forum non conveniens motion in a suit brought in California by a plaintiff who is not a California resident, the plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to little deference. Read More

If a suit is dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds, the defendant is not entitled to an attorney fee award as the prevailing party, at least if the plaintiff can and does re-file suit in the other forum. Read More

Mandate was denied because it was not clear that the contractual forum selection clause applied to the claims plaintiff alleged and because the only harm petitioner would suffer by raising the issue on a normal post-judgment appeal was the cost of the trial proceedings.  Read More