Fox Factory, Inc. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County
11 Cal. App. 5th 197
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Isherwood, a British Columbia resident, suffered a spinal cord injury in BC when the steerer tube of Fox forks allegedly failed. He sued in California (April 22, 2013) and filed a related action in Vancouver the next day.
- California defendants included Fox (a California corporation), Specialized (CA), Full Speed Ahead (WA), and King (OR). Summary judgment later dismissed Full Speed Ahead, Specialized, and King, leaving only Fox.
- Fox moved to dismiss or stay the California action on forum non conveniens grounds, arguing BC was a suitable forum (plaintiff resident, accident and evidence in BC, Oak Bay Bikes a BC defendant) and Fox would be disadvantaged in procuring Canadian witnesses. Fox stipulated to BC jurisdiction.
- The superior court denied the motion, applying a "seriously inconvenient forum" standard (citing Ford), reasoning the inquiry is whether California is a seriously inconvenient forum.
- Fox petitioned for writ review, arguing the court applied the wrong legal standard because nonresident plaintiffs receive less deference in their forum choice; the Court of Appeal agreed and remanded for reconsideration under the correct standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard for forum non conveniens when plaintiff is a foreign nonresident | Isherwood: court must require a showing that California is a "seriously inconvenient" forum before granting dismissal | Fox: foreign plaintiff’s forum choice gets less deference; defendant need not meet a "seriously inconvenient" threshold but must show balance of private/public factors favor alternate forum | Court held the superior court erred: the "seriously inconvenient" standard is inappropriate for a foreign nonresident plaintiff; remanded to apply Stangvik/Piper balancing with less deference to plaintiff’s forum choice |
| Burden/timing to seek stay while other defendants remained | Isherwood: Fox waited and litigated in California, so motion untimely | Fox: could not practically move earlier while other defendants remained; discovered BC suit late | Court upheld trial court’s finding Fox’s motion was not untimely and defendants could not have moved sooner |
| Whether error was harmless | Isherwood: any standard error harmless; should not disturb denial | Fox: error prejudicial | Court declined to find harmless error; remanded for reconsideration under correct legal standard |
| Whether appellate court should direct dismissal | Isherwood: (implicit) keep case in CA | Fox: seek dismissal or stay in favor of BC | Court refused to order dismissal; directed remand for proper discretionary reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Stangvik v. Shiley Inc., 54 Cal.3d 744 (1991) (establishes two-step forum non conveniens framework and explains reduced deference to foreign plaintiffs)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (Supreme Court: foreign plaintiff’s forum choice entitled to less deference)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 35 Cal.App.4th 604 (1995) (applied a "seriously inconvenient" test; Court of Appeal here rejects its broad application to foreign plaintiffs)
- National Football League v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 216 Cal.App.4th 902 (2013) (applies Stangvik to a nonresident plaintiff and rejects requiring a "seriously inconvenient" showing)
- Northrop Corp. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 220 Cal.App.3d 1553 (1990) (discusses weight accorded to resident plaintiffs’ forum choice)
- Gulf Oil Co. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947) (Supreme Court articulating private/public interest factors underlying forum non conveniens)