Case Number: SC120148 Hearing Date: June 04, 2014 Dept: O

SC120148
BERTINI v. WASHINGTON

Defendants’ Demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendants demur to the claim for breach of contract on grounds that (1) forum non conveniens per CCP 430.10(a) and (2) there are no factual allegations establishing Defendants’ liability on the obligation. Forum non conveniens does not establish a court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction or its inability to grant the requested relief. The doctrine acknowledges a Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over a matter but allows a Court to refrain from exercising that jurisdiction at its discretion. CCP 430.10(a) only permits demurrer where a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, i.e. the court is unable to grant the relief requested. With regard to Defendants’ demurrer on grounds of lack of factual allegations, the allegations at ¶¶6-21 sufficiently plead grounds to hold Defendants’ liable as parties to the alleged contract and as alter egos of Defendant Washington.

ANALYSIS: Defendant’s Demurrer improperly combines arguments pertaining to forum non conveniens and insufficient allegations. The arguments pertaining forum non conveniens are properly disregarded as they do not qualify as an attack on the pleadings.

Defendants demur on grounds that the 5 additional paragraphs in the SAC do not establish any basis for Defendants’ liability. Defendants were not the persons sponsoring the charity event and were only the alleged producer/founders of the event.

Plaintiff opposes on grounds that Defendants were admittedly the auctioneers at the charity event. Plaintiff asserts Defendants’ arguments on grounds of forum non conveniens fail as well, because the entire package was to be performed in California, all Defendants are California residents and have their principal place of business.

Plaintiff sufficiently pleads grounds for liability against Defendant Washington based on his organization of the charitable event and his status as founder and auctioneer thereof. See SAC, ¶21. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Washington used his companies, Defendants Pantheon and Anim, as his alter egos. Plaintiff’s alter ego allegations are located in ¶¶6 through 24. The facts alleged establish a unity of interest between Defendant Washington and Defendants Pantheon and Anim, the use of the corporate form by Defendant Washington to improperly escape liability, including inadequate capitalization of these entities and an inequitable result. These allegations sufficiently plead basis for contractual liability as to all demurring Defendants. Demurrer on grounds of failure to state a claim is OVERRULED.

Defendants’ forum non conveniens arguments are improperly brought pursuant to CCP §430.10(a), which permits a demurrer based on grounds that the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading. The challenge is to the court’s power to grant relief. The demurrer lies only where it appears from the face of the complaint that the court is not competent to act. Lack of personal jurisdiction over defendant is not ground for demurrer. It must be raised, if at all, by motion to quash service of summons. If instead defendant demurs, the demurrer constitutes a general appearance, waiving any defect in personal jurisdiction. CCP § 1014. Because trial courts are now unified, there are only a few cases where the superior court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, including: (1) cases within exclusive federal court jurisdiction (e.g., patent and copyright claims); (2) cases in which jurisdiction is vested in another tribunal (e.g., claims subject to workers’ compensation exclusivity); and (3) cases involving religious or ecclesiastical disputes.

Forum non conveniens is specifically mentioned under CCP §418.10 as grounds for a motion to quash. Forum non conveniens is not a jurisdictional doctrine. 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 such conditions as may be just. CCP § 410.30(a).
The statute codifies the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens. This is not a jurisdictional doctrine. Rather, it is “an equitable doctrine invoking the discretionary power of a court to decline the exercise of jurisdiction (to stay or dismiss) it has over a transitory cause of action when it believes that the action may be more appropriately and justly tried elsewhere.” Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751.

Thus, forum non conveniens does not establish a complete lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which is the only basis for demurrer under CCP §410.30(a). The establishment that California is an inconvenient forum does not establish the Court’s inability to grant relief. The doctrine acknowledges the Court’s ability to grant relief and the discretion to find that it will refrain from exercising that ability because certain factors are met.