Crawford v. Family Tree, Inc.

• Docket Number: WD 85628
• Decision Date: 21 March 2023
• Citation: Crawford v. Family Tree, Inc., 670 S.W.3d 55 (Mo. App. 2023)
• Parties: Mary CRAWFORD and Jason Crawford, Appellants, v. FAMILY TREE, INC., Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

670 S.W.3d 55

Mary CRAWFORD and Jason Crawford, Appellants,

v.FAMILY TREE, INC., Respondent.

WD 85628

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: March 21, 2023

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 02, 2023

Application for Transfer Denied July 20, 2023

Michael Rader, Leawood, KS counsel for appellant.

Anthony Dewitt, Leawood, KS co-counsel for appellant.

Austin Green, Leawood, KS co-counsel for appellant.

Karl Kuckelman, Overland Park, KS counsel for respondent.

Thomas Fiegener, Overland Park, KS co-counsel for respondent.

Before Division One: Anthony Rex Gabbert, Presiding Judge, W. Douglas Thomson, Judge and Janet Sutton, Judge

Janet Sutton, Judge

Mary and Jason Crawford appeal from the judgment of the Jackson County Circuit Court (trial court) dismissing their civil case for damages against Family Tree, Inc. (Family Tree) on the basis of forum non conveniens. For reasons explained herein, we reverse and remand.

Factual and Procedural Background

In late March 2022, Mary Crawford went to Family Tree's garden center in Shawnee, Kansas, and while walking to the entrance she fell and was injured. In early June 2022, Mary Crawford and her husband, Jason Crawford, (the Crawfords) filed a petition for damages against Family Tree in Jackson County, Missouri, alleging negligence, premises liability, and loss of consortium.

Family Tree filed an answer to the petition, and on the same day also filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens. The motion was two sentences, which read in its entirety: "Defendant Family Tree, Inc. moves the [c]ourt to dismiss this action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Defendant incorporates its Suggestions in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss." Family Tree filed its accompanying suggestions in support, with one attached exhibit, an internet print-out for Family Tree's garden center location in Liberty, Missouri. The Crawfords filed suggestions in opposition to the motion to dismiss with one attached exhibit, which was Family Tree's application for Certificate of Authority filed with the Missouri Secretary of State's office in 2021.

The Crawfords opposed the motion to dismiss, contending that Family Tree failed to prove that the factors in State ex rel. Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. R.R. Co. v. Riederer , 454 S.W.2d 36 (Mo. banc 1970), discussed infra , weighed heavily in Family Tree's favor and that Family Tree failed to demonstrate that permitting the case to be tried in Jackson County would be oppressive, prejudicial, and manifestly unjust. Discovery was not conducted before the motion to dismiss was filed, and it does not appear that any occurred after.

The trial court did not hold a hearing on Family Tree's motion to dismiss, but notified the parties that it intended to grant the motion to dismiss and requested Family Tree submit a proposed judgment. Family Tree submitted a proposed judgment to the trial court, and the Crawfords filed an objection on the basis that it contained facts not introduced into evidence and misstatements of the law.

On August 10, 2022, the trial court entered its judgment granting Family Tree's motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens. The trial court considered the Riederer factors and found that all but one, the location of the witnesses, weighed in favor of dismissal.

The Crawfords appeal.

Standard of Review

We review a dismissal based on forum non conveniens for an abuse of discretion. Rabago v. Kansas City S. Inc., 589 S.W.3d 97, 100 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019) ; Adkins v. Hontz , 280 S.W.3d 672, 675 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009). "An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to indicate a lack of careful consideration." Adkins , 280 S.W.3d at 675. The trial court has broad discretion, but it is not unlimited and it must be applied with control. State ex rel. Wyeth v. Grady , 262 S.W.3d 216, 219 (Mo. banc 2008). "[I]f reasonable persons may differ as to the propriety of an action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be held that the trial court has abused its discretion." Id. We consider " ‘only those facts ... that were before the trial court when it ruled on the motion to dismiss, and the evidence will be viewed in a light favorable to the result of the trial court.’ " Id. (quoting Anglim v. Mo. Pac. R. Co. , 832 S.W.2d 298, 303 (Mo. banc 1992) ).

Legal Analysis

In their first point on appeal, the Crawfords contend that the trial court erred in entering a dismissal based on forum non conveniens because Family Tree did not establish and support with evidence that the Crawfords’ forum choice was manifestly inconvenient. In their second point on appeal, the Crawfords contend the trial court erred in dismissing their claims because the Riederer factors do not support a finding of inconvenience as the two venues where the suit could have been brought are contiguous and it is not inconvenient for Family Tree to defend this "neighborhood litigation." Family Tree argues that dismissal under forum non conveniens was appropriately based on the "uncontroverted" allegations in the Crawfords’ petition and that Family Tree did not need to present additional evidence. We discuss the Crawfords’ points on appeal together.

The doctrine of forum non conveniens permits a trial court to dismiss an action if the forum is seriously inconvenient and there is a more appropriate forum available to the plaintiff, even if venue and jurisdiction are otherwise proper. Adkins , 280 S.W.3d at 676 ; Campbell v. Francis , 258 S.W.3d 94, 97 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008). "The doctrine is to be applied with caution and only upon a ‘clear showing of inconvenience and when the ends of justice require it.’ " Campbell , 258 S.W.3d at 97 (quoting State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. Westbrooke , 12 S.W.3d 386, 394 (Mo. App. S.D. 2000) ). "[A] plaintiff's choice of forum is not to be disturbed except for ‘weighty reasons’ and the case should be dismissed only if the ‘balance is strongly in favor’ of the defendant.’ " Wyeth , 262 S.W.3d at 220 (quoting Anglim , 832 S.W.2d at 302 ).

I. The Riederer Factors

A trial court should weigh six important, but non-exclusive, factors in determining whether a suit should be dismissed on the grounds of an inconvenient forum. Riederer , 454 S.W.2d at 39 ; Wyeth , 262 S.W.3d at 220. They are: (1) the place where the cause of action accrued; (2) the location of witnesses; (3) the residence of the parties; (4) any nexus with the place of suit; (5) the public factor of the convenience to and burden on the court; and (6) the availability to the plaintiff of another court with jurisdiction over the cause of action that affords the plaintiff a forum for his or her remedy. Riederer, 454 S.W.2d at 39.

"[T]he weight to be given any one factor may be different depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case." Taylor v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 954 S.W.2d 496, 500 (Mo. App. S.D. 1997) ; see also Anglim , 832 S.W.2d at 302–03. There may be additional factors to consider "in light of the particular circumstances of each case." Adkins , 280 S.W.3d at 676. The "relevant factors must first be considered as to whether they weigh heavily in favor of applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens , and then as to whether a trial in Missouri would be oppressive to the defendants and unduly burdensome for Missouri courts." Id. "The defendant has the burden of establishing all factors supporting a claim that a Missouri court is an inconvenient forum." Wyeth , 262 S.W.3d at 228 (Clark, J., concurring) (citation omitted); Anglim , 832 S.W.2d at 305.

Applying the first factor to the facts of the case here, the cause of action did not accrue in Missouri. Crawford visited the Family Tree's garden center in Shawnee, Kansas where she was allegedly injured while walking to the front doors. This factor weighs in favor of dismissal under forum non conveniens.

The second factor is the location of the witnesses. Riederer, 454 S.W.2d at 39. In its suggestions to its motion to dismiss, Family Tree indicated that "the witnesses that would testify to the elements necessary to establish [p]laintiffs’ claims are located in Kansas. At this early point in the litigation, there are no known witnesses located in Missouri." The trial court found, "It is unclear at this early point in the litigation if there are any witnesses located in Missouri." The location of the witnesses does not weigh in favor of dismissal because, as the Crawfords point out, the names of witnesses have not been disclosed, and the names were not contained in their petition. Therefore, it follows, that Family Tree cannot establish that any witnesses would be "inconvenienced" by appearing in Jackson County for trial. This factor does not weigh in favor of dismissal under forum non conveniens.

The third factor is residence of the parties. Riederer, 454 S.W.2d at 39. In its reply to Crawfords’ suggestions in opposition to the motion to dismiss, Family Tree claimed that although it had a Missouri presence, it was only a resident for venue and jurisdiction purposes, but not for forum non-conveniens purposes. The trial court acknowledged the following:

While Family Tree may be a Missouri resident for purposes of venue and jurisdiction, it is not a Missouri resident for purposes of forum non conveniens analysis. Family Tree was created under the laws of Kansas, has its headquarters in Kansas, and does its principal place of business is in Kansas. There are no corporate activities that are relevant to this case which Family Tree conducts in Missouri.

The trial court summarily found that all of the parties are Kansas residents, and that this weighed in favor of dismissal. While Family Tree is a Kansas corporation, it fails to acknowledge that by availing itself of the ability to do business in Missouri, it also becomes a Missouri resident for purposes of the venue statutes.

Family Tree,...