Belnap Freight Lines, Inc. v. Petty

• Decision Date: 18 March 1975
• Citation: 46 Cal.App.3d 159,119 Cal.Rptr. 907
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: BELNAP FREIGHT LINES, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Neuman PETTY et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 44565.

Page 907

119 Cal.Rptr. 907

46 Cal.App.3d 159

BELNAP FREIGHT LINES, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Neuman PETTY et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Civ. 44565.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

March 18, 1975.

Hearing Denied May 14, 1975.

Clifford Douglas, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and appellant.

Linton, Waterhouse, Cushman & Hammond, by P. Theodore Hammond, Pasadena, for defendants and respondents.

McCOURTNEY, Associate Justice. ^*

Plaintiff Belnap Freight Lines, appeals from a stay order granted by the trial court under section 410.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure enjoining it from proceeding in the subject action until termination of certain proceedings in Utah or until further order of the court.

The appellant initially brought an action in essence in fraud against two of the defendants in the present action, Neuman Petty and Petty Investment Company, claiming the defendants had used certain monies entrusted to them for investment on behalf of appellant to purchase certain property in Montebello, California and taken title in the name of the Petty Investment Company, rather than appellant. That suit was settled in 1969 by an agreement whereby Neuman Petty as an individual was to pay appellant a sum in cash and one-half of the property was to be transferred to the appellant as tenant in common. The defendant Petty did not comply with the terms of the agreement but retained a one-half interest in the property and conveyed the other half to one Utahna Belnap, now deceased. In 1972 administration of the deceased Utahna Belnap was commenced in Utah. During the course of that administration the question of the interest of the estate in the Montebello property was raised, and subsequently an equitable action was instituted against the plaintiff herein and LeGrand L. Belnap to declare that they had no interest in the property. The Utah court enjoined the plaintiff from proceeding or prosecuting their claim in California against any of the parties to the various suits in Utah. None of the respondents in the action before us are parties to that suit although they all are relatives of the deceased and residents or Utah.

In April, 1973, appellant commenced this action in Los Angeles Superior Court attempting to quiet title to the Montebello property, reform the deed, establish a constructive trust or in some manner obtain the one-half interest agreed upon in the stipulated settlement of the original suit. Defendants moved under Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30 to stay proceedings until the proceedings in Utah were terminated. The trial court granted the motion and plaintiff appeals claiming that the section is not applicable under these circumstances and therefore the court abused its discretion in granting the motion.

The doctrine of the inconvenient forum is one that developed initially in the federal courts, primarily because that system is nationwide and there is broad jurisdiction in each court to transfer an action to another federal court in another state. State courts have recently followed that lead and by statute or case law approved the procedure. California originally followed the doctrine on the basis of comity between states but recently gave statutory recognition by section 410.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That section provides:

'(a) 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 doctrine has been invoked in cases where the plaintiff has proper venue but jurisdiction has been declined because his choice of forum results in harassment or undue hardship on the parties involved. Our Judicial Council has pointed out the determinative factors that have guided the courts are many but the principal interests are (1) the amenability of the parties to personal jurisdiction in the situs where the action is brought and in the alternative forum; (2) the relative ease of requiring attendance of witnesses and parties; and (3) the selection of a convenient, reasonable and fair place of trial. In connection with the latter the court must consider the residence of the parties, whether they conduct business within the state, whether the transaction arose or had substantial relationship to that state, the avoidance of a multiplicity of action, and similar considerations. One other factor the courts have emphasized is the enforceability and conclusiveness of judgment.

As the section authorizing this course of action is new, there is a dearth of cases interpreting it. Both appellant and respondent have cited and discussed Rozan v. Rozan (1957) 49 Cal.2d 322, 317 P.2d 11, and Simmons v. Superior Court (1950) 96 Cal.App.2d 119, 214 P.2d 844. Both cases were decided before the present statute and in each the court in California stayed its action in favor of another state...