Douglas DeBerti, et al. v. Vaughn Gittin, Jr., et al., 17CV-0391

Hearing: Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative Stay, for Forum Non Conveniens

Date: March 28, 2018

On July 25, 2017, California residents, Douglas DeBerti and Bradley DeBerti (“Plaintiffs”), filed this action against Vaughn Gittin, Jr. (“Gittin”) and Vaughn Gittin, Jr. Motorsports, LLC (“VGM”; collectively, “Defendants”).1 The dispute arises out of Plaintiffs’ purchase of a vehicle used for drift racing.

The facts of this case were set forth in the Court’s ruling on the Motion to Quash filed on March 9, 2018, of which the Court takes judicial notice. (Evid. Code, § 452(d).) The Court denied the Motion to Quash as to Gittin and VGM, finding sufficient minimum contacts to exercise jurisdiction over these nonresident Defendants. Defendants now ask the Court to decline exercising such jurisdiction and dismiss, or in the alternative stay, the action based on forum non conveniens. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10(a)(2).)

If the court finds that “in the interest of substantial justice” an action filed in California should be adjudicated elsewhere, it may stay or dismiss the action “on any conditions that may be just.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.30(a).) Defendants, as the moving parties, bear the burden of proof that the action should be tried elsewhere. (Stangvik v. Shiley, Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751.) “The quantum of evidence needed to satisfy that burden may vary, however, depending on whether plaintiff is or is not a California resident and whether defendant seeks a stay of the action or dismissal.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶3:408.5.)

A resident plaintiff’s choice of forum will rarely be disturbed unless the court is convinced that (1) a “suitable alternative forum exists”; and (2) the balance of the private and public interests make it just that the litigation proceed in the alternative forum. (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 752; see also Nat’l Football League v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 902, 917 [“If the plaintiff is a California resident, the ‘plaintiff’s choice of a forum should rarely be disturbed unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant.’”])2
1 Plaintiffs also named Ian Stewart and Autosport Dynamics, Inc. as Defendants. On March 9, 2018, the Court quashed the service of summons as to these Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction.

2 Defendants note “[t]he inquiry when analyzing a motion to dismiss or stay on the basis of inconvenient forum is … whether California is a seriously inconvenient forum.” (Mtn., p. 7, ll. 10-13, citing Ford Motor Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 604, 611.) “[T]he phraseology ‘seriously inconvenient’ … was intended to describe the quantum of evidence needed to justify a dismissal in the face of the strong presumption favoring a resident plaintiff’s choice to sue in
2

Whether the alternative forum is suitable is the “threshold inquiry” and depends “on whether an action may be commenced in the alternative jurisdiction and a valid judgment obtained there against defendant.” (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 752, fn. 3; see also Investors Equity Life Holding Co. v. Schmidt (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1368 [determination that a suitable alternative forum exists is “lynchpin”].) “An alternative forum is suitable if it has jurisdiction and the action in that forum will not be barred by the statute of limitations.” (Guimei v. General Elec. Co. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 689, 696.)

“It is well settled under California law that the moving parties satisfy their burden on the threshold suitability issue by stipulating to submit to the jurisdiction of the alternative forum and to waive any applicable statute of limitations.” (Hahn v. Diaz-Barba (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1190.) Defendants have not made any such stipulations in their moving papers.3

Regardless, Defendants state they are both subject to jurisdiction in North Carolina – VGM because it has is principal place of business in that state, and Gittin because he is the sole member/owner of VGM. Defendants further state that North Carolina law provides remedies for Plaintiffs’ claims and that Plaintiffs’ claims are not barred by the relevant statutes of limitations in North Carolina which are three and four years for the various claims.

Plaintiffs do not dispute any of these statements. When the defendants meet their burden on the first prong, the burden falls on the plaintiff to show the alternative forum is nevertheless unsuitable. (Hahn, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 1190.) Plaintiffs have failed to do so here. The Court, accordingly, finds that North Carolina is a suitable alternative forum, and moves on to the second prong of the forum non conveniens inquiry.

Before deciding whether the parties’ private convenience weighs in favor of California or North Carolina, the Court considers the interests of the California public in retaining the matter here. The public interest factors include: (1) California’s interest in avoiding undue congestion of its courts; (2) protecting the interests of potential jurors so they are
its home-state court system.” (Nat’l Football League v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 902, 932; Reply, pp. 3-4 [Defendants recognize burden may not be applicable to a stay].) The court in National Football went on to “question whether the ‘serious inconvenience’ terminology properly describes a moving party’s burden of proof, even for dismissal against resident plaintiffs.” (Id. at p. 932, fn. 14.)

3 Alternatively, a court may require a defendant to submit to jurisdiction in the other state and/or waive any statute of limitations as a condition to granting their motion. (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 752; see also Investors Equity, supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 1368 [California has an interest in retaining jurisdiction (i.e., staying rather than dismissing the action) to ensure defendants comply with their promises in the alternate forum].)

3

not called upon to decide cases in which the local community has little concern; and (3) weighing the competing interests of California and North Carolina in the litigation (e.g., California’s interest in regulating the transaction or activities involved). (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751.) “[T]he jurisdiction with the greater interest should bear the burden of entertaining the litigation.” (Id. at p. 757.)

The action here presents a relatively straightforward case with two plaintiffs and two defendants which would not unduly burden the Court. Similarly, the fact that the alleged defective automobile is in California appears to be a sufficiently local concern for summoning a jury if requested. Finally, California has an interest in the safety and viability of products sold for use in this state.4

The final step is to consider the private interests of the litigants. “The private interest factors are those that make trial and the enforceability of the ensuing judgment expeditious and relatively inexpensive, such as [1] the ease of access to sources of proof, [2] the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, and [3] the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses.” (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751.)

Here, Defendants argue that VGM’s principal place of business, and its race shop where the testing of the equipment took place, is in North Carolina; that North Carolina is closer to Gittin’s home state of Maryland; that the VGM employees and mechanics involved in the assembly and preparation of the equipment package, the administrative coordinator that handled the logistics of the racing equipment test day and shipment of the equipment, the transmission shop which prepared the transmission before sale and inspected and repaired it after the sale, are all within 50 miles of Charlotte, North Carolina. Similarly, the company that prepared and sold the racing engine for the vehicle, and inspected and repaired it after the sale, is in Kentucky, which is much closer to North Carolina. Defendants note that compelling these individuals to appear in California would require the issuance of a commission in their respective local state courts, which would be costly and time consuming. (Mtn., p. 15, ll. 1-2.)

The Court takes due notice of Defendants’ points. However, when the plaintiff is a resident of California, his or her choice of forum is presumed to be convenient. (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 754.) Although that presumption is not conclusive, this state has a “strong interest in assuring its own residents an adequate forum for redress of grievances.” (Id. at pp. 754-755.) Here, Plaintiffs are California residents; the vehicle at the center of the parties’ dispute is located in California, and the trainers who were present when the car was being run, and observed the problems with the vehicle, are also located in California. 4 Defendants argue North Carolina has a strong interest in adjudicating claims relating to the motorsport industry. (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 757 [jurisdiction with the greater interest should bear the burden of litigating the dispute].) Other than stating that the NASCAR Hall of Fame is located in Charlotte, Defendants did not present any evidence for the Court’s consideration showing the importance of the motorsport industry to North Carolina.
4

While North Carolina is a suitable alternative forum, the public and private factors (which primarily focus on the added expense and difficulty of procuring testimony from out of state witnesses) do not outweigh the strong presumption in favor of a California resident’s choice of forum. The motion is denied.