Case Number: BC595137??? Hearing Date: August 18, 2016??? Dept: 58
Hearing Date: Thursday, August 18, 2016
Calendar No: 5
Case Name: Perez v. LS Logistics Corp., et al.
Case No.: BC595137
Motion: Motion to Dismiss
Moving Party: Defendant LS Logistics Corp.
Responding Party: Plaintiff Juan Perez
Tentative Ruling: Motion to dismiss is granted.
________________________________________
On 9/18/15, Plaintiff Juan Perez filed this action against Defendants LS Logistics Corp., IM Trucking Corp., D&D Expre4ss Transport Corp., and Duran & Duran Trucking Corp. arising out of personal injuries sustained while employed as a long-haul truck driver transporting goods from Florida to California. Plaintiff alleges that his time schedule demands did not permit Plaintiff to get adequate rest, resulting in Plaintiff losing control of his vehicle and hitting a guardrail on 9/12/14 near Soledad, CA. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) failure to pay overtime, and (3) failure to provide adequate meal and rest periods. LS Logistics moves to dismiss or stay this action based on the doctrine of inconvenient forum. CCP ? 418.10(a)(2).
On 7/19/16, the Court provided a tentative ruling granting the motion to dismiss. However, the Court permitted the parties to submit supplemental briefs. The Court sets forth the essence of its prior tentative ruling, followed by a discussion concerning the supplemental briefs.
Inconvenient Forum ?
CCP ? 410.30(a) provides: ?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.? ?In determining whether to grant a motion based on forum non conveniens, a court must first determine whether the alternate forum is a ?suitable? place for trial. If it is, the next step is to consider the private interests of the litigants and the interests of the public in retaining the action for trial in California.? Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751. ?On a motion for forum non conveniens, the defendant, as the moving party, bears the burden of proof. The granting or denial of such a motion is within the trial court?s discretion, and substantial deference is accorded its determination in this regard.? Id.
1. Suitable Forum
?A forum is suitable if there is jurisdiction and no statute of limitations bar to hearing the case on the merits.? Chong v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1036-37 (citing Shiley Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 126, 131). LS Logistics argues that Florida is a suitable forum because all the parties are residents there (Complaint ?? 1-5; RJN Exs. 1-5) and Plaintiffs? claim are not barred by the statute of limitations (Fla. Statute ? 95.11(3)(a), (f), (4)(c)). This is sufficient to establish that Florida is a suitable alternative forum. The Court notes however that Plaintiff?s choice of California as a forum is entitled to great weight despite Plaintiff being a non-resident of California. See Ford Motor Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 604, 610-11; Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1465 n.6.
2. Private and Public Interests
?The private interest factors are those that make trial and the enforceability of the ensuing judgment expeditious and relatively inexpensive, such as the ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses. The public interest factors include avoidance of overburdening local courts with congested calendars, protecting the interests of potential jurors so that they are not called upon to decide cases in which the local community has little concern, and weighing the competing interests of California and the alternate jurisdiction in the litigation.? Stangvik, 54 Cal.3d at 751.
Plaintiff argues that the private and public factors weigh in favor of California not being seriously inconvenient because Plaintiff?s accident occurred in California, the emergency and medical personnel who responded to and treated Plaintiff are located in California, and California has an interest in Plaintiff?s wage and hour claims as relating to transportation business conducted in California. See Complaint ?? 18-25.
However, Plaintiff?s action does not focus on where the accident and his treatment occurred. Instead, Plaintiff?s action is directed at Defendants unreasonably placing time restrictions on Plaintiff?s employment so that Plaintiff was not permitted meal and rest breaks (Complaint ? 37) and related wage and hour claims (see id. ? 44, 51-53): these claims concern the employment relationship between Florida corporations and a Florida employee. California has no interest in such claims. See Baltimore Football Club, Inc. v. Superior Court (1985) 171 Cal.Appl.3d 352, 364-65.
Additionally, LS Logistics submits that at the time of the accident Plaintiff was accompanied by another driver who is a resident of Florida (Melendez Decl. ?? 5-6) and note that Plaintiff has been transferred back to Florida for further medical management (Complaint ? 25). Therefore, it appears that all pertinent witnesses to the claims in this action are located in Florida. It bears emphasizing that any California emergency and medical personnel involved in this action appear to be located near Soledad and San Jose (see Complaint ?? 18-25). The forum in this particular Los Angeles Court is seriously inconvenient for all individuals and parties, for all purposes.
Therefore, the Court finds that the private and public interest factors strongly weigh in favor of Florida, and indicate that California is a substantially inconvenient forum. See Morris, 144 Cal.App.4th at 1465; cf. National Football League v. Fireman?s Fund Ins. Co. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 902, 932-33, n. 15 (distinguishing the strong presumption in favor of a choice of forum and the seriously inconvenient standard as to dismissal orders adverse to a California resident). Because Plaintiff is not a California resident, the motion to dismiss is granted. See Morris, 144 Cal.App.4th at 1463.
3. Supplemental Briefs
Plaintiff?s supplemental brief relies almost entirely on Sullivan v. Oracle Corp. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1191, which essentially held that as a general rule California?s overtime wage and hour laws apply to work performed in California for a California-based employer by nonresidents (id. at 1206). Plaintiff relies on dicta in Sullivan in which the Supreme Court suggested that while California law may not apply to nonresident employees of an out-of-state business who enter California temporarily during the course of the workday, nonresident employees who enter California for entire days or weeks may under some circumstances be afforded the protection of the California wage and hour laws. Id. at 1199-1200.
Sullivan does not weigh in favor of a departure from the Court?s prior ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. At most, Sullivan supports an argument that Plaintiff might permissibly bring certain types of California wage and hour claims against LS Logistics. But see 8 C.C.R. ? 11090(3)(L); Collins v. Overnite Transportation Co. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 171, 180 (holding that California?s wage orders include a motor carrier exemption which bars a claim for overtime for truck drivers). However, Sullivan does not address the inconvenient forum standards that are the subject of defendant?s Motion to Dismiss, but instead merely supports Plaintiff?s argument that California has a general interest in enforcing its wage and hour laws. The Court?s prior ruling was not based on a finding that California has no interest in enforcing its wage and hour laws. Indeed, the Court did not and does not render any opinion on whether Plaintiff can assert California wage and hour claims.
Though including California wage and hour claims and involving Plaintiff?s accident in California, Plaintiff?s action focuses on the employment relationship between Florida corporations and a Florida employee. California may have an interest in enforcing its applicable wage and hour laws on a nonresident performing work in California, but all other public and private interest factors predominate and weigh in favor of a finding that California – – and, in particular, this Los Angeles Court – – is an inconvenient forum for this particular case under the circumstances.
In sum, the motion to dismiss is granted.