Archibald v. Cinerama Hotels

• Decision Date: 21 January 1976
• Docket Number: S.F. 23251
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 544 P.2d 947 Marybelle ARCHIBALD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CINERAME HOTELS et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Page 811

126 Cal.Rptr. 811

15 Cal.3d 853, 544 P.2d 947

Marybelle ARCHIBALD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CINERAME HOTELS et al., Defendants and Respondents.

S.F. 23251.

Supreme Court of California In Bank.

Jan. 21, 1976.

Friedman, Collard & Kaufman, Lally & Mills, Morton L. Friedman, John E. Ryan and Peter E. Mills, Sacramento, for plaintiff and appellant.

Robert E. Cartwright, San Francisco, Edward I. Pollock, Los Angeles, Stephen I. Zetterberg, Claremont, Robert G. Beloud, Upland, Ned Good, Los Angeles, David B. Baum, Arne Werchick, San Francisco, Elmer Low, Pasadena, and Leonard Sacks, Encino as amici curiae on behalf of plaintiff and appellant.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Irwin F. Woodland, Robert A. Miller, Scott A. Kruse, Wayne W. Smith, Munger, Tolles, Hills & Richershauser, Peter R. Taft, Melvin H. Wald, Los Angeles, Carla Anderson Hills, Lopez, Kennedy & Srite, Redding, Carlsmith, Carlsmith, Wichman & Case, James H. Case, Honolulu, Hawaii, Jack Halpin, Redding, Swerdlow, Glikbarg & Shimer, Harry B. Swerdlow, Allan Albala, Jerome L. Levine, Beverly Hills, Diepenbrock, Wulff, Plant & Hannegan, John V. Diepenbrock, Sacramento, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, E. Judge Elderkin, San Francisco, Stephen A. Mazurak, Alameda, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, Burnham, Enersen, San Francisco, Lloyd W. McCormick, Jonathan Greenfield, San Francisco, Flint & Mackay, San Francisco, Argue, Freston & Myers, John C. Argue and Edwin Freston, Los Angeles, for defendants and respondents.

TOBRINER, Justice.

Plaintiff Archibald appeals from a trial court order dismissing her class action against all defendants on grounds of Forum non conveniens and additionally against defendant Waikiki Hotels-Seven for want of personal jurisdiction. We explain that because plaintiff is a California resident, the trial court erred in granting defendants' motion to dismiss on grounds of Forum non conveniens; even if Hawaii would provide a more convenient forum, as defendants contend, the authority of the trial court is limited to Staying the California action pending proceedings in Hawaii. With regard to the question of jurisdiction over defendant Waikiki Hotels-Seven, we adopt the views stated in the opinion of Presiding Justice Leonard Friedman for the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District, which held that defendant's declarations did not suffice to establish that California lacked personal jurisdiction over such defendant.

Plaintiff Archibald, a California resident, filed the present action on behalf of herself and other California residents who visit the State of Hawaii. Defendants include companies which own or operate over 40 hotels and motels in Hawaii, as well as American Express Company, an agency which procured hotel reservations for plaintiff and other members of her class. She alleges that hotels in Hawaii have established by agreement a discriminatory rate structure which imposes on mainland visitors a higher room rental than the rate, called the Kamaaina rate, charged to residents of Hawaii.

Plaintiff visited Hawaii in 1971 and 1972 and was charged room rentals higher than the Kamaaina rate; she alleges that other California residents have fallen victim to the same practice. Asserting that the alleged price discrimination is illegal under both California and Hawaii law, plaintiff seeks recovery of compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the class she represents. ¹

All the defendants joined in a motion to dismiss the action on the ground of Forum non conveniens. Defendant Waikiki Hotels-Seven also moved to quash service of summons on the ground that it was not subject to personal jurisdiction in California. The trial court granted both motions, and plaintiff appealed.

1. The superior court erred in dismissing the suit on the ground of forum non conveniens.

The doctrine of Forum non conveniens, established in California by judicial decision (Goodwine v. Superior Court (1965) 63 Cal.2d 481, 47 Cal.Rptr. 201, 407 P.2d 1; Price v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 577, 268 P.2d 457), is codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30. This section provides that '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 formum outside this state, the court shall stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.'

As we noted in Ferreira v. Ferreira (1973) 9 Cal.3d 824, 838, 109 Cal.Rptr. 80, 89, 512 P.2d 304, 313, 'Both the terms of section 410.30 and the prior decisional law . . . distinguish between the dismissal of an action on grounds of forum non conveniens, and the stay of an action on that ground.' This distinction, we explained, 'does not merely lie in terminology. The staying court Retains jurisdiction over the parties and the cause; . . . it can compel the foreign (party) to cooperate in bringing about a fair and speedy hearing in the foreign forum; it can resume proceedings if the foreign action is unreasonably delayed or fails to reach a resolution on the merits. . . . In short, the staying court can protect . . . the interests of the California resident pending the final decision of the foreign court.' (9 Cal.3d at p. 841, 109 Cal.Rptr. at p. 91, 512 P.2d at page 315; see Comment (1974) 62 Cal.L.Rev. 365, 398.) A court which has dismissed a suit on grounds of Forum non conveniens, on the other hand, has lost jurisdiction over the action and in relinquishing that jurisdiction deprived itself of the power to protect the interests of the California resident.

Because a court which has dismissed a suit cannot thereafter protect the interests of the litigants, we have consistently held that except in extraordinary cases a trial court has no discretion to dismiss an action brought by a California resident on grounds of forum non conveniens. In Goodwine v. Superior Court, supra, 63 Cal.2d 481, 485, 47 Cal.Rptr. 201, 204, 407 P.2d 1, 4, we said that 'A determination that a plaintiff is domiciled here would ordinarily preclude granting the defendant's motion for dismissal on the ground of forum non conveniens.' Thomson v. Continental Ins. Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 738, 742, 59 Cal.Rptr. 101, 104, 427 P.2d 765, 768, observed that 'Forum non conveniens has only an extremely limited application to a case where, as here, the plaintiff is a bona fide resident of the forum state.' Ferreira v. Ferreira, supra, stated that 'in the ordinary case, the doctrine of forum non conveniens does not permit the dismissal of an action itself, as distinguished from a stay of that action, brought by a California resident.' (9 Cal.3d at p. 837, 109 Cal.Rptr. at p. 89, 512 P.2d at p. 313.) ²

Noting that our decisions have indicated that in an extraordinary case the court could dismiss an action by a California resident on grounds of Forum non conveniens, defendants assert that the present action is such an extraordinary case; they support this assertion by pointing to considerations which suggest that Hawaii might be a more convenient place of trial. ³ In so asserting, defendants necessarily assume that the extraordinary case to which we referred in Goodwine, Thomson and Ferreira is simply a case in which the foreign forum is very much more convenient.

Defendants' assumption overlooks the reasoning underlying our refusal to permit the dismissal of actions brought by California residents. This limitation of the Forum non conveniens doctrine does not rest on any conclusion derived from a balancing of conveniences; it reflects an overriding state policy of assuring California residents an adequate forum for the redress of grievances. (See Thomson v. Continental Ins. Co., supra, 66 Cal.2d 738, 742--743, 59 Cal.Rptr. 101, 427 P.2d 765; Ferreira v. Ferreira, supra, 9 Cal.3d 824, 829, 109 Cal.Rptr. 80, 512 P.2d 304.) ⁴ In light of that policy, the exceptional case which justifies the dismissal of a suit under the doctrine of Forum non conveniens is one in which California cannot provide an adequate forum ⁵ or has no interest in doing so. Examples would include cases in which no party is a California resident (Price v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., supra, 42 Cal.2d 577, 268 P.2d 457) or in which the nominal California resident sues on behalf of foreign beneficiaries or creditors. ⁶

The present case does not fall within the exception to the rule barring dismissal. Plaintiff here sues on behalf of herself and other California residents, not as the representative of foreign beneficiaries or creditors; she asserts that she and other California residents have been victimized by unlawful and oppressive price discrimination. California unquestionably has an interest in assuring plaintiff a forum adequate to resolve this controversy and can, if necessary, provide that forum itself. ⁷

Defendants respond that to refuse to permit the trial court to dismiss a suit by a true California resident even when the foreign forum is much the more convenient turns the doctrine of Forum non conveniens on its head, and transforms it into an inflexible rule compelling trial in an inconvenient forum. Their argument overlooks the power of the trial court, applying the doctrine of Forum non conveniens, to stay a suit by a California resident even when it lacks the power to dismiss that suit. In considering whether to stay an action, in contrast to dismissing it, the plaintiff's residence is but one of many factors which the court may consider. The court can also take into account the amenability of the defendants to personal jurisdiction, the convenience of witnesses, the expense of trial, the choice of law, and indeed any consideration which legitimately bears upon the relative suitability or convenience of the alternative forums. (See Gulf Oil v. Gilbert (1947) 330 U.S. 501, 508--509, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055; Thomson v. Continental Ins. Co., supra, 66 Cal.2d 738, 746--747, 59 Cal.Rptr. 101, 427 P.2d 765; Goodwine v....