Schultz v. Union Pac. R. Co.

• Citation: 118 Cal.App.2d 169,257 P.2d 1003
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Decision Date: 27 May 1953
• Parties: SCHULTZ v. UNION PAC. R. CO. Civ. 19359.

Page 1003

257 P.2d 1003

118 Cal.App.2d 169

SCHULTZ v. UNION PAC. R. CO.

Civ. 19359.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

May 27, 1953.

Hearing Denied July 22, 1953.

Hildebrand, Bills & McLeod and D. W. Brobst, Oakland, for appellant.

E. E. Bennett, Edward C. Renwick and Malcolm Davis, Los Angeles, for respondent.

VALLEE, Justice.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of dismissal entered on the granting of a motion of defendant to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens in an action for damages for personal injuries brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. ¹

Plaintiff, a citizen and resident of the state of Washington, was injured in Washington while in the employ of defendant. Defendant is a Utah corporation, engaged in interstate commerce, authorized to and doing business in Washington and California. Plaintiff commenced the action in the superior court of Los Angeles County and obtained service on defendant in that county. Defendant answered and as a special defense asked that the action be dismissed on the plea of forum non conveniens. The special defense was heard separately on motion. The motion was supported by an affidavit which stated facts showing harassment, inconvenience, and expense, sufficient to have warranted the granting of the motion if the doctrine of forum non conveniens may be applied. The motion was granted and a judgment of dismissal entered.

Plaintiff contends that to deny him the privilege of maintaining the action in the superior court of this state would violate the Privileges-and-Immunities Clause of the Constitution of the United States. ² Congress has enacted that an action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act may be brought 'in the district of the residence of the defendant, * * * or in which the defendant shall be doing business at the time of commencing such action.' ³ Defendant appears to concede that the superior court has jurisdiction. ⁴ Its claim is that although the superior court has jurisdiction, it is not compelled to exercise it, and may dismiss the action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. We have concluded that by reason of the Privileges-and-Immunities Clause plaintiff's choice of a forum in this state cannot be denied on the plea of forum non conveniens.

The Privileges-and-Immunities Clause reads:

'The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.' ⁵

In Chambers v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 207 U.S. 142, 28 S.Ct. 34, 52 L.Ed. 143, the cause of action, which ran to a nonresident, was grounded on the death of a locomotive engineer which occurred in a foreign jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of the United States announced these principles, 207 U.S. 148, 28 S.Ct. 35, 52 L.Ed. 146:

'The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society it is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government. It is one of the highest and most essential privileges of citizenship, and must be allowed by each state to the citizens of all other states to the precise extent that it is allowed to its own citizens. Equality of treatment in this respect is not left to depend upon comity between the states, but is granted and protected by the Federal Constitution. * * *

'But, subject to the restrictions of the Federal Constitution, the state may determine the limits of the jurisdiction of its courts, and the character of the controversies which shall be heard in them. The state policy decides whether and to what extent the state will entertain in its courts transitory actions, where the causes of action have arisen in other jurisdictions. Different states may have different policies, and the same state may have different policies at different times. But any policy the state may choose to adopt must operate in the same way on its own citizens and those of other states. The privileges which it affords to one class it must afford to the other. Any law by which privileges to begin actions in the courts are given to its own citizens and withheld from the citizens of other states is void, because in conflict with the supreme law of the land.' ⁶

In Miles v. Illinois C. R. Co., 135 U.S. 698, 62 S.Ct. 827, 830, 86 L.Ed. 1129, 1134, it was said: 'To deny citizens from other states, suitors under F. E. L. A., access to its courts would, if it permitted access to its own citizens, violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause.'

'The rule of forum nonconveniens is an equitable one embracing the discretionary power of a court to decline to exercise the jurisdiction it has over a transitory cause of action when it believes that the action before it may be more appropriately and justly tried elsewhere.' ⁷

In Leet v. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 1944, 25 Cal.2d 605, 155 P.2d 42, the Supreme Court of this state held that a plaintiff has an absolute right to have an action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act tried in a competent state court; that such right cannot be defeated by the doctrine of forum non conveniens; that the state court must exercise jurisdiction; and that California courts cannot refuse jurisdiction. ⁸

However, in Missouri v. Mayfield, 1950, 340 U.S. 1, 71 S.Ct. 1, 3, 95 L.Ed. 3, 8, the Supreme Court of the United States held a state may 'deny access to its courts to persons seeking recovery under the Federal Employers' Liability Act if in similar cases the State for reasons of local policy denies resort to its courts and enforces its policy impartially, see McKnett v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 292 U.S. 230, 54 S.Ct. 690, 78 L.Ed. 1227, so as not to involve a discrimination against Employers' Liability Act suits and not to offend against the Privileges-and-Immunities Clause of the Constitution. No such restriction is imposed upon the States merely because the Employers' Liability Act empowers their courts to entertain suits arising under it.' ⁹

It is settled that a state court may not decline to entertain an action by a citizen of another state under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, even though the cause of action arose out of the state and the defendant is a noncitizen and nonresident, unless the circumstances are such that the court would also decline the action if brought by a citizen of the state of suit. ¹⁰ Where a state court would exercise its jurisdiction of a transitory action not arising under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, it may not decline to exercise it merely because the action is brought under the Act. ¹¹ It is only where a state by statute or judicial decision curtails the jurisdiction of its courts with respect to transitory causes of action arising outside of the state, or sued upon by a nonresident of the forum, that the court has the power to decline jurisdiction if the cause of action arises under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. ¹² Where by local law a court has no discretion to refuse jurisdiction over a transitory cause of action of a nonresident, it cannot decline jurisdiction in an action arising under the Federal Employers' Liability Act because the plaintiff is a citizen and resident of another state where the accident happened. ¹³

In Mondou v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Second Employers' Liability Cases), 233 U.S. 1, 32 S.Ct. 169, 56 L.Ed. 327, 38 L.R.A.,N.S., 44, the Supreme Court of the United States held that where the ordinary jurisdiction of Connecticut courts as prescribed by local laws, was 'adequate to the occasion'--that is, extended to actions to recover for personal injuries and death--and the courts were accustomed to exercise that jurisdiction, not only in cases where the right of action arose under the laws of Connecticut but also in cases where it arose in another state under its laws, jurisdiction of an action to enforce rights arising under the Federal Employers' Liability Act could not be declined by the Connecticut courts on the theory the federal statute was not in harmony with the policy of the state or that the exercise of such jurisdiction would be attended by inconvenience and confusion because of the different standards of right established by the congressional act from those recognized by the laws of the state.

Missouri v. Mayfield, 340 U.S. 1, 71 S.Ct. 1, 95 L.Ed. 3, was certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri in Federal Employers' Liability Act cases. The latter court had denied mandate in two original proceedings brought to compel a trial court to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in disposing of motions to dismiss in two actions on the plea of forum non conveniens. The two actions were by noncitizens and nonresidents against foreign corporations, which maintained agents in Missouri, for torts committed outside Missouri. The Supreme Court of the United States was in doubt as to whether the Supreme Court of Missouri had felt it was under compulsion by reason of the Federal Employers' Liability Act to deny mandate; and, holding that is 'should be freed to decide the availability of the principle of forum non conveniens in these suits according to its own local law', reversed, saying inter alia, 71 S.Ct. 3, 95 L.Ed. 7:

'A decision by the highest court of a State determining that the doctrine of forum non conveniens cannot bar an action based on the Federal Employers' Liability Act, in the circumstances before us, may rest on one of three theories. (1) According to its own notions of procedural policy, a State may reject, as it may accept, the doctrine for all causes of action begun in its courts. If denial of a motion to dismiss an action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act is rested on such a general local practice, no federal issue comes into play. (It is assumed of course that the State has acquired jurisdiction over the defendant.) (2) By reason of the Privileges-and-Immunities Clause of the Constitution, a State may not discriminate against citizens of sister States. Art. IV,...