National Football League v. Fireman's Fund Insurance
216 Cal. App. 4th 902
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- NFL and NFL Properties seek declaratory relief on 187 insurance policies issued by 32 insurers over ~1968–2012; underlying tort suits against NFL for brain injuries; parallel New York MDL proceedings exist; California action was stayed pending NY outcome; trial court granted stay after weighing private/public factors; NFL was found not a California resident for purposes of forum non conveniens; NY is a suitable alternate forum; standard of review is abuse of discretion for balancing, de novo/substantial evidence for alternate forum suitability; insurers moved to stay under CCP 410.30; NFL appealed challenging burden of proof and residency determinations; court upheld stay and denial of California forum
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does NFL count as a California resident for forum non conveniens? | NFL argues unincorporated association resides where members reside | Court should treat NFL as NY-based entity with primary ties outside CA | No strong presumption in favor of CA residency; balancing favors NY as suitable forum |
| Is a seriously inconvenient forum burden required for a stay? | Ford/Northrup standards demand serious inconvenience to CA | Century Archibald/Stangvik guide for stays; no serious-inconvenience burden for stays | Burdens for a stay may be less stringent; no requirement to prove CA seriously inconvenient |
| Did the trial court improperly give dispositive weight to the NY action? | First-filed NY action should control | Court properly used NY as alternative forum among factors | No dispositive deference; stay outcome within discretion |
| Did the court shift burden to NFL to prove California’s inconvenience? | NFL claims moving party bore heavy burden to prove CA is inconvenient | Burden is on movants to show alternate forum exists and factors balance | No improper burden shift; burden appropriate to moving party |
| Were California factors properly weighed to justify stay? | CA interests, witnesses, and public costs weighed in NFL’s favor | Factors favor NY due to evidence sources, witnesses, and underlying events | Court properly balanced private/public factors; stay affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Stangvik v. Shiley, Inc., 54 Cal.3d 744 (Cal. 1991) (two-step forum non conveniens: suitable forum then balancing; deference to trial court; residence factors but not sole determinant)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 35 Cal.App.4th 604 (Cal. App. 1995) (strong presumption for CA forum; seriously inconvenient burden in dismissal context; distinguish stay)
- Century Indemnity Co. v. Bank of America, 58 Cal.App.4th 408 (Cal. App. 1999) (stay discretion wider than dismissal; Archibald guidance; consideration of relative forum suitability)
- Archibald v. Cinerama Hotels, 15 Cal.3d 853 (Cal. 1976) (stay power; plaintiff residence is one factor among many; flexible balancing)
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1947) (forum non conveniens principle: avoid imposition of jurisdiction for inconvenient forums)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1981) (presumption against forum shopping; review of forum choice)