18CV335735
SABSE TECHNOLOGIES et al v. YOGESH PATEL et al

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss based on the forum non conveniens doctrine, claiming the right forum for this lawsuit is India. Plaintiffs disagree.

“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 (Stangvik).) The ultimate question is whether the balancing of the Stangvik factors shows that California is a seriously inconvenient forum. (Ford Motor Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 604, 611.) Defendants, as the moving parties, bear the burden of proof. (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751.)

Is India a Suitable Place for Trial? “ ‘A forum is suitable if there is jurisdiction and no statute of limitations bar to hearing the case on the merits. [Citation.] “[A] forum is suitable where an action ‘can be brought,’ although not necessarily won.” [Citation.]’ [Citations.]” (Roulier v. Cannondale (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1186.)

Defendants are expressly conceding jurisdiction in India and expressly waiving any statute of limitations issues. And as many courts have recognized, India has a robust, fair legal system (despite some delays) and can be a “suitable forum.” Thus, the Court finds that India is a suitable place for trial.

Private Interests of Litigants: “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.” (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751.)

Here, most of the witnesses are in India. Much of the proof is in India. And just because India may not have discovery rules as liberal as California doesn’t mean plaintiffs can’t obtain most of the evidence they seek. The related lawsuit in India also weighs in favor of India as a forum. Litigating these issues in California would be burdensome for defendants, most of whom reside in India.

Public Interests: “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. [Citations.]” (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751.)

In this case, India has more compelling interests than California for this case. India has an incentive to protect its citizens and companies. Since the events at issue primarily occurred in India, a Santa Clara County jury would have little concern for such events. It also is unnecessary to burden a Santa Clara County court with this India-focused dispute.

Conclusion: The Court understands that typically, deference is given to a plaintiff’s choice of forum. But that deference is not absolute, and must yield “if the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant.” (Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1465.) Defendants have carried their burden to show that California is a seriously inconvenient forum. The Court therefore GRANTS the motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens considerations.