Stangvik?v.?Shiley?Inc.?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?744?,?1?Cal.Rptr.2d?556;?819?P.2d?14 [No.?S018015.?Nov?21,?1991.] MELLET?STANGVIK?et?al.,?Plaintiffs?and?Appellants,?v.?SHILEY?INCORPORATED?et?al.,?Defendants?and?Respondents. JENNY?MIKAELA?MARIE?THERESE?BIRGITTA?KARLSSON?et?al.,?Plaintiffs?and?Appellants,?v.?SHILEY?INCORPORATED?et?al.,?Defendents?and?Respondents. (Superior?Court?of?Orange?County,?Nos.?530881?and?530887,?Gary?L.?Taylor,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?Mosk,?J.,?expressing?the?unanimous?view?of?the?court.) COUNSEL Robins,?Kaplan,?Miller?&?Ciresi,?Bruce?A.?Finzen,?Joseph?L.?Dunn?and?Gary?L.?Wilson?for?Plaintiffs?and?Appellants.?[54?Cal.3d?749] Kaye,?Scholer,?Fierman,?Hays?&?Handler,?Pierce?O’Donnell,?Palmieri,?Tyler,?Wiener,?Wilhem?&?Waldron,?Frank?C.?Rothrock,?Gary?C.?Weisberg,?Michele?D.?Murphy,?Skadden,?Arps,?Slate,?Meagher?&?Flom?and?Malcolm?E.?Wheeler?for?Defendants?and?Respondents. Harvey?M.?Grossman,?Nielsen,?Merksamer,?Hodgson,?Parrinello?&?Mueller,?Steve?Merksamer,?John?E.?Mueller,?James?C.?Gross,?Thomas?W.?Hiltachk,?Arthur?R.?Miller,?Mayer,?Brown?&?Platt,?Kenneth?S.?Geller,?Evan?M.?Tager,?James?G.?Duncan,?Stephen?M.?Shapiro,?Pillsbury,?Madison?&?Sutro,?Walter?R.?Allan,?Alson?R.?Kemp,?Jr.,?Mark?H.?Penskar?and?Dale?C.?Lysak?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Defendants?and?Respondents. Crosby,?Heafy?Roach?&?May,?Raoul?D.?Kennedy,?Peter?W.?Davis,?James?C.?Martin?and?Paul?D.?Fogel?as?Amici?Curiae. OPINION MOSK,?J. In?this?case?we?address?the?question?of?the?appropriate?standards?to?be?applied?in?deciding?whether?a?trial?court?should?grant?a?motion?based?on?the?doctrine?of?forum?non?conveniens?when?the?plaintiff,?a?resident?of?a?foreign?country,?seeks?to?bring?suit?against?a?California?corporation?in?the?courts?of?this?state.?We?granted?review?to?resolve?a?conflict?between?the?opinion?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?in?the?present?case?on?the?one?hand,?and?Corrigan?v.?Bjork?Shiley?Corp.?(1986)?182?Cal.App.3d?166?[227?Cal.Rptr.?247],?and?Holmes?v.?Syntex?Laboratories,?Inc.?(1984)?156?Cal.App.3d?372?[202?Cal.Rptr.?773],?on?the?other. Plaintiffs,?members?of?two?families,?one?residing?in?Norway?and?the?other?in?Sweden,?are?the?wives?and?children?of?two?men?who?received?heart?valve?implants?in?the?countries?of?their?residence.?The?valves?were?designed?and?manufactured?in?California?by?defendant?Shiley?Incorporated?(Shiley),?a?California?corporation.?In?both?cases,?the?valves?allegedly?failed,?and?the?patients?died.?Thereafter,?plaintiffs?filed?suit?in?California?against?Shiley?and?its?parent?company,?a?Delaware?corporation?(hereinafter?defendants),?alleging?that?the?valves?were?defective.?They?sought?damages?based?on?theories?of?negligence,?strict?liability,?breach?of?warranty,?fraud,?and?loss?of?consortium.?One?of?the?complaints?also?sought?recovery?for?negligent?infliction?of?emotional?distress. Defendants?moved?to?dismiss?or?stay?the?actions?on?the?ground?of?forum?non?conveniens,?as?authorized?by?section?410.30?of?the?Code?of?Civil?[54?Cal.3d?750]?Procedure.fn.?1?They?asserted?that?the?cases?should?be?tried?in?Sweden?and?Norway?because?it?was?in?those?countries?that?the?plaintiffs?resided,?the?valves?were?sold,?decedents?received?medical?care,?the?alleged?fraudulent?representations?were?made,?and?evidence?regarding?the?provision?of?health?care?and?other?matters?existed.?Plaintiffs?countered?that?California?was?the?more?convenient?place?of?trial?because?the?valves?were?designed,?manufactured,?tested?and?packaged?in?California.?The?parties?introduced?conflicting?evidence?regarding?plaintiffs’?legal?rights?and?remedies?in?Scandinavia,?and?each?claimed?that?the?most?important?and?numerous?documents?and?witnesses?were?located?in?the?country?which?they?asserted?was?the?most?appropriate?place?for?trial.?The?trial?court?found?in?favor?of?defendants,?concluding?that?California?was?an?inconvenient?forum?and?that?Sweden?and?Norway?provided?adequate?alternative?forums?for?resolution?of?the?actions.?It?stayed?the?actions,?and?retained?jurisdiction?to?make?such?further?orders?as?might?become?appropriate.?The?order?was?subject?to?seven?conditions,?with?which?defendants?agreed?to?comply.fn.?2 The?Court?of?Appeal?affirmed,?after?discussing?the?various?private?and?public?interest?factors?relevant?to?a?determination?of?the?appropriate?forum?for?the?trial?of?an?action?under?the?doctrine?of?forum?non?conveniens.?It?declined?to?follow?Corrigan?v.?Bjork?Shiley?Corp.,?supra,?182?Cal.App.3d?166?(hereafter?Corrigan),?and?Holmes?v.?Syntex?Laboratories,?Inc.,?supra,?156?Cal.App.3d?372?(hereafter?Holmes),?a?case?which?preceded?Corrigan?by?two?years. [1a]?Plaintiffs?claim?that?the?convenience?of?the?parties?and?public?policy?would?be?best?served?if?the?actions?were?tried?in?California,?and?that?the?Court?of?Appeal?distorted?the?analysis?of?these?factors?in?upholding?the?trial?court’s?decision.?They?assert?also?that?the?appellate?court?failed?to?analyze?or?give?weight?to?certain?matters?which?prior?California?decisions?have?held?are?relevant?to?a?determination?of?a?forum?non?conveniens?motion.?We?conclude?that?the?Court?of?Appeal?correctly?decided?the?case?and?affirm?its?judgment.?[54?Cal.3d?751] [2]?Forum?non?conveniens?is?an?equitable?doctrine?invoking?the?discretionary?power?of?a?court?to?decline?to?exercise?the?jurisdiction?it?has?over?a?transitory?cause?of?action?when?it?believes?that?the?action?may?be?more?appropriately?and?justly?tried?elsewhere.?(Leet?v.?Union?Pac.?R.?R.?Co.?(1944)?25?Cal.2d?605,?609?[155?P.2d?42,?158?A.L.R.?1008].)?The?doctrine?was?first?applied?in?California?in?Price?v.?Atchison,?T.?&?S.?F.?Ry.?Co.?(1954)?42?Cal.2d?577?[268?P.2d?457,?43?A.L.R.2d?756]?(hereafter?Price).?We?described?the?basis?of?the?doctrine?as?follows:?”?’There?are?manifest?reasons?for?preferring?residents?in?access?to?often?overcrowded?Courts,?both?in?convenience?and?in?the?fact?that?broadly?speaking?it?is?they?who?pay?for?maintaining?the?Courts?concerned.’?…?[T]he?injustices?and?the?burdens?on?local?courts?and?taxpayers,?as?well?as?on?those?leaving?their?work?and?business?to?serve?as?jurors,?which?can?follow?from?an?unchecked?and?unregulated?importation?of?transitory?causes?of?action?for?trial?in?this?state?…?require?that?our?courts,?acting?upon?the?equitable?principles?…,?exercise?their?discretionary?power?to?decline?to?proceed?in?those?causes?of?action?which?they?conclude,?on?satisfactory?evidence,?may?be?more?appropriately?and?justly?tried?elsewhere.”?(Id.?at?pp.?582-584.) [3]?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.?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.?(Piper?Aircraft?Co.?v.?Reyno?(1981)?454?U.S.?235,?259-261?[70?L.Ed.2d?419,?437-439,?102?S.Ct.?252]?(hereafter?Piper);?Gulf?Oil?Corp.?v.?Gilbert?(1947)?330?U.S.?501,?507-509?[91?L.Ed.?1055,?1061-1063,?67?S.Ct.?839].) [4]?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.?(Piper,?supra,?454?U.S.?at?p.?257?[70?L.Ed.2d?at?[54?Cal.3d?752]?pp.?436-437];?Lacey?v.?Cessna?Aircraft?Co.?(3d?Cir.?1991)?932?F.2d?170,?178-179;?Credit?Lyonnais?Bank?Nederland,?N.V.?v.?Manatt,?Phelps,?Rothenberg?&?Tunney?(1988)?202?Cal.App.3d?1424,?1436?[249?Cal.Rptr.?559].) [5]?On?the?first?of?these?issues,?whether?the?case?may?be?”suitably”?tried?in?Norway?and?Sweden,?the?answer?is?clear.?The?Judicial?Council?comment?to?section?410.30?declares?in?part,?”[T]he?action?will?not?be?dismissed?unless?a?suitable?alternative?forum?is?available?to?the?plaintiff?[citations].?Because?of?…?[this]?factor,?the?suit?will?be?entertained,?no?matter?how?inappropriate?the?forum?may?be,?if?the?defendant?cannot?be?subjected?to?jurisdiction?in?other?states.?The?same?will?be?true?if?the?plaintiff’s?cause?of?action?would?elsewhere?be?barred?by?the?statute?of?limitations,?unless?the?court?is?willing?to?accept?the?defendant’s?stipulation?that?he?will?not?raise?this?defense?in?the?second?state?[citations].”?(Judicial?Council?com.,?14?West’s?Ann.?Code?Civ.?Proc.?(1973?ed.)???410.30,?pp.?492-493,?hereinafter?referred?to?as?Judicial?Council?Comment.)?Defendants?stipulated?that?they?would?submit?to?jurisdiction?in?Sweden?or?Norway,?respectively,?as?well?as?to?the?tolling?of?the?statute?of?limitations?during?the?pendency?of?the?actions?in?California.?Thus,?the?courts?of?Sweden?and?Norway?present?suitable?forums?for?trial?of?the?actions.fn.?3 [1b]?We?proceed,?then,?to?the?second?and?more?difficult?question,?whether?the?Court?of?Appeal?erred?in?concluding?that?the?balance?of?the?private?and?public?interests?justified?a?stay?of?the?actions.?The?court?relied?heavily?on?Piper,?supra,?454?U.S.?235,?in?reaching?its?decision.?Piper,?like?the?present?case,?involved?foreign?plaintiffs?who?sought?to?hold?an?American?manufacturer?liable?for?deaths?which?occurred?in?a?foreign?country.?There,?an?airplane?built?by?the?defendant?in?Pennsylvania,?crashed?in?Scotland,?killing?several?residents?of?that?country.?The?representative?of?the?decedents’?estates?filed?a?wrongful?death?action?in?federal?district?court,?alleging?negligence?and?strict?liability.?The?district?court?in?Pennsylvania?granted?a?motion?by?defendants?on?the?ground?of?forum?non?conveniens,?concluding?that?Scotland?was?the?appropriate?forum?for?trial?of?the?action.?The?circuit?court?reversed?the?judgment?because?Scottish?law?was?less?favorable?to?the?plaintiffs?than?the?law?of?Pennsylvania. This?decision?was?in?turn?reversed?by?the?Supreme?Court,?in?an?opinion?which?discussed?the?factors?to?be?considered?in?determining?a?forum?non?[54?Cal.3d?753]?conveniens?motion.?The?high?court,?in?its?analysis?of?the?doctrine,?reiterated?long-standing?principles,?first?clearly?enunciated?by?it?in?Gulf?Oil?Corp.?v.?Gilbert,?supra,?330?U.S.?501,?and?later?applied?in?California?in?Price,?supra,?42?Cal.2d?577.?The?court?warned?that?the?private?and?public?interest?factors?must?be?applied?flexibly,?without?giving?undue?emphasis?to?any?one?element.?A?court?should?not?decide?that?there?are?circumstances?in?which?the?doctrine?will?always?apply?or?never?apply.?Otherwise,?the?flexibility?of?the?doctrine?would?be?threatened,?and?its?application?would?be?based?on?identification?of?a?single?factor?rather?than?the?balancing?of?several.?(Piper,?supra,?454?U.S.?at?pp.?249-250?[70?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?431-432].)fn.?4?The?high?court?recognized?that?there?is?”ordinarily?a?strong?presumption?in?favor?of?the?plaintiff’s?choice?of?forum”?(id.?at?p.?255?[70?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?435]),?but?held?that?a?foreign?plaintiff’s?choice?deserves?less?deference?than?the?choice?of?a?resident. The?high?court?discussed?in?some?detail?the?significance?to?be?accorded?to?the?fact?that?the?law?of?the?forum?state?is?more?favorable?to?the?plaintiff?than?that?of?the?alternate?jurisdiction.?In?this?connection,?it?observed?that?the?laws?of?the?United?States?in?product?liability?actions?favor?plaintiffs?in?several?respects:?the?law?of?strict?liability,?which?exists?in?almost?all?50?states?but?only?a?handful?of?foreign?countries;?the?existence?of?jury?trials?in?such?actions,?resulting?in?sometimes?generous?awards,?contingent?attorney?fee?arrangements,?and?more?liberal?rules?of?discovery.?It?held?that?if?substantial?weight?is?given?to?the?circumstance?that?the?law?in?the?forum?state?is?more?favorable?to?the?plaintiff?than?the?one?in?the?alternate?jurisdiction,?”The?American?courts,?which?are?already?extremely?attractive?to?foreign?plaintiffs,?would?become?even?more?attractive.?The?flow?of?litigation?into?the?United?States?would?increase?and?further?congest?already?crowded?courts.?[Fn.?omitted.]”?(Piper,?supra,?454?U.S.?at?p.?252?[70?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?433].)?[6a]?Thus,?the?possibility?of?an?unfavorable?change?in?the?law?is?a?”relevant?consideration”?only?if?the?remedy?in?the?alternative?forum?”is?so?clearly?inadequate?or?unsatisfactory?that?it?is?no?remedy?at?all?….”?(Id.?at?p.?254?[70?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?435].)fn.?5?[54?Cal.3d?754] After?analyzing?the?interests?of?the?parties?and?of?Scotland?in?the?litigation,?the?court?concluded?that?”the?incremental?deterrence?that?would?be?gained?if?this?trial?were?held?in?an?American?court?is?likely?to?be?insignificant.?The?American?interest?in?this?accident?is?simply?not?sufficient?to?justify?the?enormous?commitment?of?judicial?time?and?resources?that?would?inevitably?be?required?if?the?case?were?to?be?tried?here.”?(Piper,?supra,?454?U.S.?at?pp.?260-261?[70?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?438-?439].)fn.?6 [1c]?In?the?present?case,?the?trial?court?found?that?Sweden?and?Norway?were?adequate?alternative?forums.?Defendants?produced?evidence?that?Norway?and?Sweden?might?permit?recovery?under?a?strict?liability?theory,?that?Norway?might?allow?special?damages?(but?not?punitive?damages)?in?some?circumstances,?and?that?the?actions?could?be?pursued?in?those?countries?without?undue?delay.?Although?some?of?this?evidence?was?contradicted?by?plaintiffs,?the?trial?court’s?determination?of?these?issues?is?supported?by?substantial?evidence,?and?we?defer?to?its?conclusion.?Thus,?the?fact?that?California?law?would?likely?provide?plaintiffs?with?certain?advantages?of?procedural?or?substantive?law?cannot?be?considered?as?a?factor?in?plaintiffs’?favor?in?the?forum?non?conveniens?balance. Next?we?consider?the?effect?of?the?residence?of?the?parties?in?deciding?a?motion?based?on?forum?non?conveniens.?Many?cases?hold?that?the?plaintiff’s?choice?of?a?forum?should?rarely?be?disturbed?unless?the?balance?is?strongly?in?favor?of?the?defendant.?(E.g.,?Goodwine?v.?Superior?Court?(1965)63?Cal.2d?481,?485?[47?Cal.Rptr.?201,?407?P.2d?1];?Price,?supra,?42?Cal.2d?577,?585;?Brown?v.?Clorox?Co.?(1976)?56?Cal.App.3d?306,?311?[128?Cal.Rptr.?385].)?[7]?But?the?reasons?advanced?for?this?frequently?reiterated?rule?apply?only?to?residents?of?the?forum?state:?(1)?if?the?plaintiff?is?a?resident?of?the?jurisdiction?in?which?the?suit?is?filed,?the?plaintiff’s?choice?of?forum?is?presumed?to?be?convenient?(Piper,?supra,?454?U.S.?at?pp.?255-256?[70?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?435-436];?Thomson?v.?Continental?Ins.?Co.?(1967)?66?Cal.2d?738,?744-745?[59?Cal.Rptr.?101,?427?P.2d?765]);?and?(2)?a?state?has?a?strong?[54?Cal.3d?755]?interest?in?assuring?its?own?residents?an?adequate?forum?for?the?redress?of?grievances?(Archibald?v.?Cinerama?Hotels?(1976)?15?Cal.3d?853,?859?[126?Cal.Rptr.?811,?544?P.2d?947]).?Indeed,?until?the?recent?amendment?of?section?410.30,?dismissal?of?an?action?(as?opposed?to?a?stay)?was?ordinarily?not?permitted?on?the?basis?of?inconvenient?forum?if?the?plaintiff?was?a?California?resident.?(15?Cal.3d?at?p.?859;?Thomson?v.?Continental?Ins.?Co.,?supra,?66?Cal.2d?at?p.?742;?Goodwine?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?63?Cal.2d?at?p.?485.)?Where,?however,?the?plaintiff?resides?in?a?foreign?country,?Piper?holds?that?the?plaintiff’s?choice?of?forum?is?much?less?reasonable?and?is?not?entitled?to?the?same?preference?as?a?resident?of?the?state?where?the?action?is?filed.?(Piper,?supra,?454?U.S.?at?p.?256?[70?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?436].)?[1d]?At?best,?therefore,?under?the?rule?laid?down?in?Piper,?the?fact?that?plaintiffs?chose?to?file?their?complaint?in?California?is?not?a?substantial?factor?in?favor?of?retaining?jurisdiction?here.fn.?7 [8]?Defendant’s?residence?is?also?a?factor?to?be?considered?in?the?balance?of?convenience.?If?a?corporation?is?the?defendant,?the?state?of?its?incorporation?and?the?place?where?its?principal?place?of?business?is?located?is?presumptively?a?convenient?forum.?(Judicial?Council?Com.,?supra,?p.?493.)?As?noted?above,?Shiley?is?a?California?corporation?with?its?principal?place?of?business?in?this?state. The?Court?of?Appeal?held?that?in?view?of?a?1986?amendment?to?section?410.30,?a?defendant’s?choice?to?incorporate?or?do?business?in?California?is?no?longer?a?significant?factor?in?the?balancing?process.?The?amendment,?[54?Cal.3d?756]?effective?until?January?1,?1992,?unless?extended?by?the?Legislature,?provides?that?the?”domicile?or?residence?in?this?state?of?any?party?to?the?action?shall?not?preclude?the?court?from?staying?or?dismissing?the?action.” We?doubt?the?correctness?of?the?Court?of?Appeal’s?analysis.?[9]?We?agree?with?the?statements?in?a?number?of?cases?which?have?examined?the?issue?(see,?e.g.,?Northrop?Corp.?v.?American?Motorists?Ins.?Co.?(1990)?220?Cal.App.3d?1553,?1562?[270?Cal.Rptr.?233];?Credit?Lyonnais?Bank?Nederland,?N.V.?v.?Manatt,?Phelps,?Rothenberg?&?Tunney,?supra,?202?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?1434;?Klein?v.?Superior?Court?(1988)?198?Cal.App.3d?894,?901?[244?Cal.Rptr.?226]),fn.?8?that?the?purpose?of?the?amendment?was?to?overcome?the?holding?of?Archibald?v.?Cinerama?Hotels,?supra,?15?Cal.3d?853,?and?other?cases?cited?above?that?a?trial?court?was?powerless?to?dismiss?an?action?on?the?ground?of?forum?non?conveniens?if?the?plaintiff?was?a?California?resident.?Thus,?the?presumption?of?convenience?to?a?defendant?which?follows?from?its?residence?in?California?remains?in?effect?despite?the?amendment?of?section?410.30. But,?as?Piper,?supra,?454?U.S.?235,?and?other?authorities?make?clear,?this?presumption?is?not?conclusive.fn.?9?Even?though?evidence?relating?to?the?design,?manufacture,?and?testing?of?the?airplane?involved?in?Piper?was?located?in?the?United?States,?the?plaintiffs?were?relegated?to?the?Scottish?courts?to?vindicate?their?claims.?A?resident?defendant?may?overcome?the?presumption?of?convenience?by?evidence?that?the?alternate?jurisdiction?is?a?more?convenient?place?for?trial?of?the?action.fn.?10 On?this?issue,?the?parties?disagree?sharply.?The?Court?of?Appeal?held?that?because?virtually?all?witnesses?and?documents?relating?to?the?decedents’?medical?care?and?treatment,?medical?histories,?loss?of?earnings,?and?all?the?[54?Cal.3d?757]?witnesses?to?the?familial?impacts?of?their?deaths?are?located?in?Scandinavia,?it?is?more?convenient?to?try?the?actions?there.?Defendants?point?out?in?addition?that,?although?the?alleged?fraudulent?representations?emanated?from?California,?they?were?received?and?relied?on?in?Scandinavia,?and?the?Scandinavian?doctors?have?knowledge?of?decedents’?preexisting?medical?conditions,?the?factors?relevant?to?a?risk-benefit?analysis,?and?the?handling?of?the?heart?valves?prior?to?implantation. Plaintiffs?counter?that?evidence?relating?to?defendants’?allegedly?culpable?conduct,?such?as?the?design,?manufacture,?testing?and?packing?of?the?valves,?is?in?California;?that?warnings?and?advice?to?doctors?using?the?valve?were?issued?from?this?state;?and?that?investigations?of?the?reasons?for?the?valve?failure?were?conducted?here.?Plaintiffs?represented?that?the?Scandinavian?witnesses?to?damages?and?decedents’?medical?care?have?agreed?that?they?will?be?available?to?testify?in?California.?In?addition,?they?assert,?there?are?more?than?one?million?pages?of?documents?in?California?that?are?relevant?to?the?issue?of?the?valve?failures,?and?it?would?be?extremely?time?consuming?and?costly?to?translate?even?a?fraction?of?these?into?Swedish?and?Norwegian.?Hundreds?of?witnesses?from?California?and?perhaps?other?states?will?be?called,?some?of?whom?would?not?be?available?for?trial?in?Scandinavia. Defendants?produced?evidence?that?Swedish?and?Norwegian?courts?routinely?receive?documents?into?evidence?that?are?written?in?English,?without?requiring?translation.?Among?the?conditions?imposed?by?the?trial?court?with?which?defendants?agreed?to?comply?were?to?make?available?in?Norway?and?Sweden?past?and?present?employees?of?defendants?and?documents?in?their?possession,?as?required?by?the?Scandinavian?courts.fn.?11?They?also?agreed?to?defray?the?expenses?for?the?production?of?these?witnesses?and?documents. [1e]?Before?deciding?whether?the?private?convenience?of?the?parties?weighs?in?favor?of?plaintiffs?or?defendants,?we?consider?the?interests?of?the?California?public?in?retaining?the?trial?of?the?actions?in?this?state.?Piper?held?that?the?jurisdiction?with?the?greater?interest?should?bear?the?burden?of?entertaining?the?litigation.?(Piper,?supra,?454?U.S.?at?pp.?260-261?[70?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?438-439].) The?Court?of?Appeal?considered?four?factors?in?holding?that?the?public?interest?favored?the?granting?of?the?motions:?(1)?California’s?interest?in?[54?Cal.3d?758]?avoiding?undue?congestion?of?its?courts?due?to?the?trial?of?foreign?causes?of?action;?(2)?this?state’s?deterrent?and?regulatory?interests?in?products?manufactured?here;?(3)?appropriate?deference?to?the?laws?and?policy?decisions?of?foreign?governments;?and?(4)?the?competitive?disadvantage?to?California?business?if?resident?corporations?were?required?to?defend?lawsuits?here?based?on?injuries?incurred?in?other?jurisdictions. As?to?the?first?of?these?matters,?the?court?concluded?trial?in?California?would?unduly?burden?the?court.?It?noted?that?foreign?plaintiffs?have?filed?108?actions?in?California?against?Shiley?relating?to?the?heart?valves,?and?that,?according?to?plaintiffs,?about?one?million?pages?of?documents?are?relevant?to?their?actions,?and?that?the?testimony?of?hundreds?of?witnesses?might?be?required.?Defendants?state?that?the?number?of?cases?filed?against?Shiley?involving?the?heart?valves?had?increased?to?235?by?the?time?the?briefs?were?filed.?[10]?The?court?observed?correctly?that?preventing?court?congestion?resulting?from?the?trial?of?foreign?causes?of?action?is?an?important?factor?in?the?forum?non?conveniens?analysis.?(Citing?Gulf?Oil?Corp.?v.?Gilbert,?supra,?330?U.S.?at?pp.?508-509?[91?L.Ed.?at?pp.?1062-1063];?Price,?supra,?42?Cal.2d?at?pp.?583-?584.) Plaintiffs?rely?on?authorities?stating?generally?that?if?a?case?is?”properly”?before?the?court?(Hemmelgarn?v.?Boeing?Co.?(1980)?106?Cal.App.3d?576,?586?[165?Cal.Rptr.?190])?or?if?the?action?is?”legitimately?and?correctly?brought?before?it”?(Lake?v.?Richardson-Merrell,?Inc.?(N.D.Ohio?1982)?538?F.Supp.?262,?275),?a?court?will?retain?the?case?even?in?the?face?of?a?congested?calendar.?We?have?no?argument?with?these?propositions,?and?we?agree?with?plaintiffs?that?dismissals?or?stays?for?forum?non?conveniens?should?not?be?used?primarily?to?control?a?court’s?docket.?Nevertheless,?there?can?be?no?question?that?the?already?congested?courts?of?this?state?would?be?burdened?by?the?trial?of?the?numerous?and?complex?actions?relating?to?the?heart?valve?brought?by?plaintiffs?who?reside?in?foreign?countries.?Whether?this?would?constitute?an?”undue?burden,”?however,?is?another?question.?In?order?to?determine?that?issue,?we?must?consider?other?factors?as?well. The?appellate?court?next?considered?whether?California’s?interest?in?deterring?wrongful?conduct?justified?retention?of?the?actions.?As?we?have?already?noted,?in?Piper,?the?high?court,?after?observing?that?Scotland?had?the?stronger?interest?in?the?litigation?because?the?decedents?who?died?in?the?airplane?crash?were?Scottish,?and?all?potential?defendants?except?those?before?the?American?court?were?Scottish?or?English,?held?that?the?”incremental?deterrence?that?would?be?gained?if?this?trial?were?held?in?an?American?court?is?likely?to?be?insignificant.?The?American?interest?in?this?accident?is?simply?not?sufficient?to?justify?the?enormous?commitment?of?judicial?time?and?resources?that?would?inevitably?be?required?if?the?case?were?to?be?tried?here.”?(Piper,?supra,?[54?Cal.3d?759]?454?U.S.?at?pp.?260-261?[70?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?438-439].)?The?Court?of?Appeal?adopted?this?”incremental?deterrence”?reasoning?and?concluded?that?California’s?interest?in?deterring?wrongful?conduct?did?not?outweigh?the?other?factors?pointing?to?trial?in?Scandinavia. Plaintiffs?argue?vigorously?against?this?conclusion.?They?cite?cases?stating?that?California?has?a?strong?interest?in?regulating?the?conduct?of?manufacturers?who?produce?products?in?this?state?which?cause?injury?to?persons?in?other?jurisdictions.?(Hurtado?v.?Superior?Court?(1974)?11?Cal.3d?574,?583-584?[114?Cal.Rptr.?106,?522?P.2d?666];?Clothesrigger,?Inc.?v.?GTE?Corp.?(1987)?191?Cal.App.3d?605,?615?[236?Cal.Rptr.?605];?Hemmelgarn?v.?Boeing?Co.,?supra,?106?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?586;?see?Van?Cauwenberghe?v.?Biard?(1988)?486?U.S.?517,?528?[100?L.Ed.2d?517,?528-529,?108?S.Ct.?1945].)fn.?12?This?interest,?as?the?cited?cases?make?clear,?is?to?deter?negligent?conduct;?the?likelihood?of?a?substantial?recovery?against?such?a?manufacturer?strengthens?the?deterrent?effect. [1f]?We?are?persuaded?that?under?the?facts?in?the?present?case,?the?additional?deterrence?that?would?result?if?defendants?were?called?to?account?for?their?allegedly?wrongful?conduct?in?a?California?court?rather?than?in?the?courts?of?Scandinavia?would?be?negligible.?As?we?observe?above,?there?are?235?lawsuits?pending?in?California?relating?to?the?heart?valve.?According?to?defendants,?some?of?these?have?been?filed?on?behalf?of?persons?with?functioning?valves?who?seek?damages?for?the?anxiety?engendered?by?the?apprehension?that?the?valves?may?fail.?At?least?108?of?these?suits?were?filed?by?foreign?residents,?according?to?the?Court?of?Appeal.?Many?valves?were?implanted?in?California,?and?it?is?safe?to?assume?that?the?plaintiffs?in?some?of?the?235?actions?are?California?residents.fn.?13?The?burden?imposed?on?defendants?in?trying?these?cases?by?California?residents?in?the?California?courts,?and?the?damages?that?defendants?might?be?required?to?pay?if?they?are?found?liable,?would?provide?sufficient?deterrence?to?prevent?wrongful?conduct?in?the?future?even?if?the?suits?filed?by?nonresident?plaintiffs?were?tried?elsewhere.?[54?Cal.3d?760] The?Court?of?Appeal?found?that?there?were?two?additional?factors?that?weighed?in?favor?of?granting?the?motions.?One?is?the?competitive?disadvantage?to?California?business?that?would?result?if?California?manufacturers?were?called?on?to?defend?lawsuits?involving?extraterritorial?injuries.?A?few?decisions?have?relied?on?similar?reasoning?in?granting?motions?for?forum?non?conveniens.?(Fraizer?v.?St.?Jude?Medical,?Inc.?(D.Minn.?1985)?609?F.Supp.?1129,?1131-1132;?Kaiser?Foundation?Health?Plan?v.?Rose?(D.C.?1990)?583?A.2d?156,?159;?see?Howe?v.?Diversified?Builders,?Inc.?(1968)?262?Cal.App.2d?741,?746?[69?Cal.Rptr.?56].) The?other?factor?relates?to?the?interests?and?policy?concerns?of?Sweden?and?Norway?in?the?litigation,?such?as?their?interest?in?assuring?that?new?medical?devices?be?made?available?promptly?and?inexpensively,?policies?that?might?be?threatened?by?applying?American?regulation?of?medical?products?and?liability?laws?to?actions?brought?by?foreign?citizens.?A?number?of?cases?consider?these?matters?in?determining?whether?the?forum?where?the?action?is?brought?or?the?alternative?forum?has?a?greater?interest?in?the?action.?(E.g.,?Jennings?v.?Boeing?Co.?(E.D.Pa.?1987)?660?F.Supp.?796,?808;?In?re?Union?Carbide?Corp.?Gas?Plant?Disaster?(S.D.N.Y.?1986)?634?F.Supp.?842,?864-865,?affd.?(2d?Cir.?1987)?809?F.2d?195;?Fraizer?v.?St.?Jude?Medical,?Inc.,?supra,?609?F.Supp.?at?pp.?1131-1132;?Abiaad?v.?General?Motors?Corp.?(E.D.Pa.?1982)?538?F.Supp.?537,?543,?affd.?per?curiam?(2d?Cir.?1982)?696?F.2d?980;?Harrison?v.?Wyeth?Laboratories,?etc.,?supra,?510?F.Supp.?at?p.?4;?Jones?v.?Searle?Laboratories,?supra,?444?N.E.2d?at?p.?161.) The?Court?of?Appeal?mentions?the?foregoing?two?factors?only?in?passing,?and?we?may?assume?that?they?do?not?represent?a?significant?basis?for?the?court’s?decision.?A?detailed?discussion?of?their?effect?on?the?balance?of?conveniences?is?unnecessary?since,?as?we?shall?conclude,?the?court?was?justified?in?upholding?the?judgment?on?the?basis?of?the?other?public?and?private?interest?factors?which?it?considered. Plaintiffs?place?great?reliance?on?an?additional?factor,?which?they?complain?the?Court?of?Appeal?failed?to?consider,?i.e.,?the?relationship?of?defendants?to?California.?We?hold?above?that?a?presumption?of?convenience?to?defendants?arises?from?the?fact?that?Shiley?is?incorporated?in?California?and?has?its?principal?place?of?business?here.?Another?aspect?of?defendants’?connection?with?this?state?is?that?alleged?wrongful?conduct?was?committed?here,?and?there?is?a?close?connection?between?such?conduct?and?plaintiffs’?causes?of?action.?[11]?We?agree?with?plaintiffs?that?defendants’?cumulative?connection?with?California?is?an?appropriate?matter?for?consideration?in?deciding?a?forum?non?conveniens?motion. The?significance?of?such?a?connection?is?that,?as?Corrigan?implies,?it?is?not?unfair?to?a?defendant?to?hold?the?trial?in?a?state?where?a?substantial?part?of?the?[54?Cal.3d?761]?wrongful?conduct?was?committed.?(182?Cal.App.3d?at?pp.?180-181.)?However,?Corrigan?and?other?authorities?cited?by?defendants?also?appear?to?hold?that?a?court?is?not?unfairly?burdened?by?the?trial?of?an?action?in?California?if?a?corporate?defendant?has?its?principal?place?of?business?here?and?the?tort?was?allegedly?committed?in?this?state.?(Id.?at?pp.?181-182;?Holmes,?supra,?156?Cal.App.3d?at?pp.?388-389;?Brown?v.?Clorox?Co.,?supra,?56?Cal.App.3d?306,?313-314;?see?Hemmelgarn?v.?Boeing?Co.,?supra,?106?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?580.)?We?reject?this?analysis,?for?it?would?require?that?the?court?congestion?factor?always?be?decided?in?favor?of?the?plaintiff?and?against?a?California?corporation?which?caused?injury?to?consumers?anywhere?in?the?world,?if?the?product?was?manufactured?here.fn.?14?While?the?cumulative?connection?of?the?defendant?and?its?conduct?within?the?state?is?relevant?in?deciding?whether?retention?of?an?action?would?place?an?undue?burden?on?the?courts,?we?cannot?look?only?to?such?circumstances;?matters?like?the?complexity?of?the?case,?whether?it?would?consume?considerable?court?time,?and?the?condition?of?the?court’s?docket?are?also?relevant?to?the?issue. [1g]?We?come,?then,?to?an?assessment?of?the?factors?discussed?above.?We?are?confronted?with?the?somewhat?anomalous?situation?that?the?parties?seek?to?try?the?action?in?a?jurisdiction?which?would?appear?to?violate?their?interest?in?a?convenient?place?for?trial.?Both?plaintiffs?and?defendants?are?willing-indeed,?eager-to?litigate?the?matter?in?a?jurisdiction?separated?by?an?ocean?and?a?continent?from?their?places?of?residence.?Although?both?claim?that?they?are?motivated?by?the?convenience?of?the?place?of?trial,?this?court,?like?others?before?it,?recognizes?that?an?additional?motivating?factor-and?perhaps?the?major?one-relates?to?the?circumstance?that?trial?in?California?will?enhance?the?possibility?of?substantial?recovery.?Plaintiffs?seek?and?defendants?resist?trial?in?the?California?courts?substantially?for?this?reason.?In?the?service?of?this?goal,?they?are?willing?to?transport?numerous?witnesses?and?documents?many?thousand?miles. Amici?curiae,?the?California?Chamber?of?Commerce?and?the?California?Manufacturers?Association,?suggest?that?the?private?convenience?of?the?parties?should?be?afforded?less?weight?than?the?public?interest?in?deciding?issues?of?forum?non?conveniens?when?the?plaintiff?is?the?resident?of?a?foreign?country.?They?point?out?that?with?modern?transportation?and?transmission?methods,?witnesses?can?attend?trials?relatively?easily?in?distant?places?and?documents?may?be?transferred?almost?instantaneously,?and?that?conditions?imposed?by?courts?can?mitigate?inconvenience?to?the?parties?to?a?substantial?degree.?(See?Stein,?Forum?Non?Conveniens?(1985)?133?U.?Pa.?L.?Rev.?781,?[54?Cal.3d?762]?784,?fn.?12;?Note,?Forum?Non?Conveniens?(1985)?64?Tex.?L.?Rev.?193,?216.)?Here,?for?example,?the?trial?court?conditioned?the?granting?of?a?stay?on?defendants’?agreement?to?make?documents?in?their?possession?and?witnesses?available?in?Scandinavia,?at?their?expense. The?suggestion?of?amici?curiae?has?a?certain?appeal.?Perhaps?in?the?light?of?vastly?improved?transportation?and?transmission?methods?(Fitzgerald?v.?Texaco,?Inc.?(2d?Cir.?1975)?521?F.2d?448,?455,?456?(dis.?opn.?by?Oakes,?J.)?and?the?conditions?the?trial?court?may?impose?to?mitigate?inconvenience,?we?should?be?less?concerned?with?the?convenience?of?the?parties?or?with?harassment?of?defendants?by?the?filing?of?lawsuits?in?a?forum?inconvenient?for?them?(e.g.,?Price,?supra,?42?Cal.2d?at?p.?585;?Bechtel?Corp.?v.?Industrial?Indem.?Co.?(1978)?86?Cal.App.3d?45,?50?[150?Cal.Rptr.?29])?than?with?forum?shopping?by?plaintiffs?and?reverse?forum?shopping?by?defendants,?seeking?to?take?advantage?of,?or?to?resist?the?advantage?of,?laws?favorable?to?the?plaintiff?in?the?jurisdiction?the?suit?is?filed.?(Note,?Forum?Non?Conveniens,?supra,?64?Tex.?L.?Rev.?at?pp.?215-216.) In?any?event,?even?without?adopting?the?suggestion?of?amici?curiae,?there?was?clearly?substantial?evidence?to?sustain?the?trial?court’s?determination?that?the?balance?of?private?and?public?interests?favors?defendants?under?traditional?rules?laid?down?in?prior?cases.?It?is?true?that?much,?but?not?all,?of?the?evidence?concerning?liability?exists?in?California;fn.?15?but?virtually?all?the?evidence?relating?to?damages?is?in?Scandinavia.?Since?defendants?have?promised?to?supply?documents?in?their?possession?if?required?by?the?Scandinavian?courts,?the?fact?that?a?large?number?of?documents?will?be?involved?appears?not?to?pose?a?significant?inconvenience?to?plaintiffs.?The?Court?of?Appeal?concluded?that?these?documents?could?be?admitted?into?evidence?without?translation,?and?although?there?was?conflicting?evidence?on?this?score,?its?conclusion?was?supported?by?the?record. It?is?probable?that?both?parties?will?suffer?some?disadvantage?from?trial?in?their?home?forums.?For?example,?former?employees?of?defendants?may?be?beyond?the?jurisdiction?of?the?Scandinavian?courts?and?defendants?may?be?unable?to?make?good?their?promise?to?produce?them?for?trial?in?Scandinavia.?Conversely,?defendants?have?no?means?by?which?to?ensure?that?Scandinavian?[54?Cal.3d?763]?medical?witnesses?and?others?whose?testimony?might?be?important?will?attend?the?trial?in?California.?But?these?problems?are?implicit?in?many?cases?in?which?forum?non?conveniens?motions?are?made,?and?it?is?for?the?trial?court?to?decide?which?party?will?be?more?inconvenienced. The?public?interest?factors?clearly?favor?defendants’?position.?If?we?hold?that?the?present?cases?may?be?tried?in?California,?it?will?likely?mean?that?the?remaining?108?cases?involving?the?Shiley?valve?will?also?be?tried?here.?The?burden?on?the?California?courts?of?trying?these?numerous?complex?actions?is?considerable.?Moreover,?California’s?interest?in?deterring?future?improper?conduct?by?defendants?would?be?amply?vindicated?if?the?actions?filed?by?California?resident?plaintiffs?resulted?in?judgments?in?their?favor.?Under?all?the?circumstances,?we?hold?that?the?Court?of?Appeal?was?correct?in?concluding?that?there?was?substantial?evidence?to?support?the?trial?court’s?determination?that?the?private?and?public?interest?factors,?on?balance,?justified?the?stays?granted?in?these?actions. Finally,?we?consider?Corrigan,?supra,?182?Cal.App.3d?166,?and?Holmes,?supra,?156?Cal.App.3d?372,?the?two?decisions?the?Court?of?Appeal?declined?to?follow.?Holmes?involved?a?suit?filed?in?California?by?British?plaintiffs?who?alleged?that?they?were?injured?as?a?result?of?ingesting?an?oral?contraceptive?produced?by?an?American?manufacturer?whose?principal?place?of?business?was?California.?The?court?first?held?that?California?law,?unlike?federal?law,?affords?substantial?deference?to?a?foreign?plaintiff’s?choice?of?forum.?We?have?concluded?above?to?the?contrary,?and,?indeed,?plaintiffs?in?these?actions?do?not?claim?that?the?same?amount?of?deference?is?due?to?foreign?and?resident?plaintiffs.fn.?16 [6b]?A?second?ground?of?the?Holmes?decision?was?that?”California?attaches?far?greater?significance?to?the?possibility?of?an?unfavorable?change?in?applicable?law”?in?the?alternative?forum?than?the?federal?courts.?(156?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?381.)?The?decision?concluded?that?a?factor?of?”fundamental?importance”?in?favor?of?denial?of?the?motion?for?forum?non?conveniens?was?[54?Cal.3d?764]?that?the?plaintiffs?would?be?substantially?disadvantaged?if?the?case?were?tried?in?Britain?because?that?country?did?not?afford?recovery?on?the?basis?of?strict?liability.?We?disapprove?of?this?holding.?As?Piper,?supra,?454?U.S.?235,?points?out,?if?substantial?weight?is?given?to?the?fact?that?the?law?in?the?forum?state?is?more?favorable?to?a?plaintiff?than?in?the?foreign?jurisdiction,?the?balance?will?ordinarily?favor?denial?of?the?motion,?and?substantial?weight?should?be?given?to?this?factor?only?if?the?alternative?forum?provides?no?remedy?at?all. […]
