Holmes v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc.

• Decision Date: 24 May 1984
• Citation: 202 Cal.Rptr. 773,156 Cal.App.3d 372
• Parties: Catherine HOLMES et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SYNTEX LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. A019462.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 773

202 Cal.Rptr. 773

156 Cal.App.3d 372

Catherine HOLMES et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SYNTEX LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents.

A019462.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 5, California.

May 24, 1984.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing June 22, 1984.

Hearing Denied Aug. 22, 1984.

Walter H. Walker, III, Law Offices of Sterns, Smith, Elstead & Walker, San Francisco, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Raoul D. Kennedy, Crosby, Heafey, Roach & May, A Professional Corp., Oakland, for defendants and respondents.

KING, Associate Justice.

In this case we hold that a foreign plaintiff's choice of California as the forum state for litigation against corporate defendants whose principal places of business are in this state and who are alleged to have committed a tort in California which is the basis for plaintiff's claim, should not be disturbed, unless defendants establish that the balance of relevant factors weighs strongly in their favor. Absent such a showing, it is an abuse of discretion to grant a motion to dismiss such litigation on the basis of forum non conveniens.

Appellants, a group of British women and spouses of injured or deceased women who allegedly sustained disabling or fatal injuries following ingestion of the oral contraceptive drug Norinyl, appeal from an order dismissing their actions against Syntex Laboratories, Inc., Syntex U.S.A., Inc., and Syntex Corporation (collectively referred to as Syntex) on the ground of forum non conveniens. We conclude that under California law the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed the action in favor of litigation in the United Kingdom, in view of the inadequacy of existing British law in the field of products liability and other relevant factors which bolster rather than rebut California's policy in favor of a plaintiff's choice of forum.

I. Procedural Background

On May 2, 1979, British citizens Catherine and Leslie Holmes filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court a class action on behalf of other Britons against Syntex Laboratories, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business allegedly in Palo Alto, for "damages resulting from defendants' development, testing, manufacture, production, sale, marketing, promotion and advertising" of Norinyl. The complaint alleged causes of action for negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, and fraud and misrepresentation. The major theory of the action is that "defendants caused and allowed" Norinyl to be distributed and marketed in the United Kingdom without adequate warning of known dangerous side effects and medical complications.

The complaint was later amended to name Syntex U.S.A., Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business allegedly in Palo Alto, and Syntex Corporation, the parent of Syntex Laboratories and Syntex U.S.A., a Panamanian corporation with its principal place of business in Panama and offices in Palo Alto. The amended complaint did not name Syntex Corporation's British subsidiary, Syntex Pharmaceuticals Limited, which Syntex asserts is the source of the Norinyl ingested by the plaintiffs.

Nineteen individual actions by other British citizens were also filed against Syntex. The parties have stipulated to consolidation of those actions with the Holmes action for purposes of the present appeal, and have agreed that the court documents in the Holmes action are representative of all actions.

Syntex, rather than answering the complaint, moved for dismissal on the ground of forum non conveniens, asserting that the litigation should take place in Britain. Syntex argued that its British subsidiary "had sole responsibility for all phases of decision-making regarding the compounding, promotion, marketing and distribution of Norinyl" in Britain, and that all relevant events had occurred and all evidence was to be found in Britain. Syntex stipulated that if its motion to dismiss was granted, it would submit to the jurisdiction of the British courts, waive any statute of limitations defenses under English law for a reasonable period of time, make witnesses and documents available in the United Kingdom, and pay any adverse judgments that might be obtained in the United Kingdom.

On July 15, 1982, after hearing Syntex's motion, the court announced from the bench that the motion was granted relying upon the United States Supreme Court's decision in Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981) 454 U.S. 235, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419. The court cited the location in Britain of the plaintiffs, the doctors who disseminated the drugs, the "various agencies that had anything to do with the drugs," and the "great bulk of all of the liability evidence." The court said that the Santa Clara County Superior Court was "an overburdened court that has just gone through a tremendous budget crisis" and sustained costs of $2,000 per day "just to keep one court open." The court also said, "If the other forum is not a totally unreasonable forum like Chile with its military junta, if it's a forum that a person has a decent chance to have their day in court, I don't see why we should suddenly come over and say: well, American courts can give you a brighter day than an English court." ¹

The court rendered a formal order of dismissal of all actions, subject to the conditions that defendants submit to the jurisdiction of courts in the United Kingdom, waive any statute of limitation defenses provided plaintiffs commence civil actions in Britain within six months of resolution of the present appeal, make witnesses and documents available in Britain, and consent to pay any adverse judgments that might be obtained in the United Kingdom. Appellants challenge the forum non conveniens dismissal.

II. The Applicable Law

A. General Principles

The doctrine of forum non conveniens was established in California by judicial decision and was subsequently codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30. (Archibald v. Cinerama Hotels (1976) 15 Cal.3d 853, 857, 126 Cal.Rptr. 811, 544 P.2d 947.) That statute 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."

The determination whether to apply the doctrine rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. "Nevertheless, the exercise of such discretion may not be arbitrary; it must be exercised in conformity with the spirit of the law and in a manner to subserve and not impede the ends of substantial justice." (Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 105, 110, 90 Cal.Rptr. 461.) The trial court's determination will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. (Hemmelgarn v. Boeing Co. (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 576, 584, 165 Cal.Rptr. 190.)

California's forum non conveniens doctrine is derived from federal law. (See Price v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 577, 580-583, 268 P.2d 457.) The federal courts, however, have broader discretion to grant forum non conveniens motions than do state courts, because of their authority to transfer venue to a federal court in another state rather than simply stay or dismiss the action. (Judicial Council com., 14 West's Ann.Civ.Proc.Code, § 410.30 (1973 ed.) p. 494 (hereafter cited as Judicial Council comment); Note, Forum Non Conveniens in California: Code of Civil Procedure Section 410.30 (1970) 21 Hastings L.J. 1245, 1253-1254; see 28 U.S.C. § 1404, subd. (a); Norwood v. Kirkpatrick (1954) 349 U.S. 29, 32, 75 S.Ct. 544, 546, 99 L.Ed. 789.)

In ruling on a forum non conveniens motion, California courts are to consider a variety of factors, twenty-five of which are enumerated in Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.App.3d at pp. 113-115, 90 Cal.Rptr. 461. (See also Archibald v. Cinerama Hotels, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 860, 126 Cal.Rptr. 811, 544 P.2d 947 [citing Great Northern ]; Hemmelgarn v. Boeing Co., supra, 106 Cal.App.3d at pp. 584-585, 165 Cal.Rptr. 190.) ² The Judicial Council comment identifies two points as being "the two most important." The first is that "since it is for the plaintiff to choose the place of suit, his choice of a forum should not be disturbed except for weighty reasons ...." (Judicial Council comment, supra, at p. 492; accord, Brown v. Clorox Co. (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 306, 311, 128 Cal.Rptr. 385; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.App.3d at p. 110, 90 Cal.Rptr. 461.) The second is that "the action will not be dismissed unless a suitable alternative forum is available to the plaintiff...." (Judicial Council comment, supra, at p. 492, emphasis added.)

The remaining factors have been characterized as involving either the private interests of the parties or the public's interest in the litigation. (Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert (1947) 330 U.S. 501, 508, 67 S.Ct. 839, 843, 91 L.Ed. 1055.) Factors affecting private interests include such matters as the relative convenience to the parties and witnesses of trial in the proposed alternative forum, and the location of sources of proof. (Ibid.; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.App.3d at pp. 113-114, 90 Cal.Rptr. 461.) Factors affecting the public interest include such matters as possible administrative difficulties and other inconveniences from crowded calendars and congested courts, and whether prosecution of the action will or may place a burden on the California courts which is unfair, inequitable or disproportionate in view of the relationship of the parties or the cause of action to this state. (Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, supra, 330 U.S. at p. 508, 67 S.Ct. at p. 843; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.App.3d at pp. 113-114, 90 Cal.Rptr. 461.)

B. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno

In 1981 the United States Supreme Court rendered an important decision...