Velasco v. Americanos United States, LLC
| Decision Date | 10 January 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. CV 13-05251-VAP (DTBx) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | ROSARIO VELASCO, AN INDIVIDUAL; JESUS GARCIA, AN INDIVIDUAL, Plaintiff, v. AMERICANOS USA, LLC, A TEXAS CORP., GREYHOUND LINES, INC., A DELAWARE CORP., et al., Defendants. |
[Motion filed on November 12, 2013]
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss or Conditionally Stay for Forum Non Conveniens ("Motion" or "Mot.") (Doc. No. 16) filed by Defendants Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Americanos USA, LLC (collectively, the "Greyhound Defendants") and Defendants Omnibus Americanos S.A. de C.V., Autobuses Americanos S.A. de C.V., Grupo Estrella Blanca, Roja Flecha Corporation, Juan Carlos Castillo Sanchez, and Ceasar Portillo (collectively, the "Grupo Defendants"). Defendants also filed a Motion toStay Discovery (Doc. No. 27). This matter came before the court for hearing on January 6, 2014. The Court has considered all of the papers file in support of, and in opposition to, the motions. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens, and dismisses this action, with conditions as described below.1 As the Court dismisses this action on the basis of the forum non conveniens doctrine, the Court DENIES the Motion to Stay Discovery as MOOT.
This case arises out of a bus accident. Plaintiffs Rosario Velasco ("Velasco") and Jesus Garcia ("Garcia") were passengers on a bus that embarked from Aguscalientes, Mexico enroute to El Monte, California, and was proceeding northbound on National Highway 45, on the Montezuma Villa Ahumada Chihuahua segment, traveling to Ciudad Juarez at approximately 4:30 a.m on May 7, 2012. (Notice of Removal (Doc. No. 1) Ex. A (First Amended Complaint ("FAC")) at ¶ 34; see also Declaration of Hortensia Garcia Perez (Doc. No. 17) at ¶ 3.) Ataround the kilometer marker "204+000," a white 1989 Ford pickup truck sat abandoned in the road, facing northbound. (Id. at ¶ 35.) The bus collided with the truck, causing both Plaintiffs to suffer severe injuries. (Id. at ¶ 36.) Velasco was in a coma for two days, needed 120 sutures on her face, and her right ear and arm were amputated. (Id. at ¶ 38.) Garcia suffered injuries to his arm, hand, back, and neck, lacerations to hisface and forehead, and loss of consciousness. (Id.)
Plaintiffs allege that the bus had two drivers, operating as "partners," Defendants Juan Carlos Castillo Sanchez ("Sanchez") and Cesar Portillo ("Portillo"). (Id. at ¶ 5.) According to Plaintiffs, Sanchez was under the influence of alcohol while driving at the time of the accident, which was a contributing cause of the collision. (Id. at ¶ 48.)
Plaintiffs also make a number of allegations concerning corporate partnerships and other affiliations between the Greyhound and Grupo Defendants. For example, Plaintiffs allege that the bus was owned by Defendant Omnibus Americanos S.A. de C.V. ("Omnibus"), and that Omnibus, Greyhound, and Defendant Sistema Internacional de Transporte de Autobusses, Inc.,2 were in a jointventure named "Autobuses Americanos." (Id. at ¶ 2.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege that the bus was leased to Omnibus by Roja Flecha Corporation. (Id.) According to Plaintiffs, a number of the Defendant corporations "have engaged in and continue to engage in an interwoven series of joint ventures/and or other business relationships to provide bus transportation from the southwestern United States, including California, to destinations in Mexico and back." (Id. at ¶ 13.)
Plaintiffs allege that when they purchased their bus tickets they were under the impression they would be traveling on American buses, operated in conjunction with American bus operators, including Defendant Greyhound. (Id. at ¶¶ 62, 73.) Plaintiffs relied on the implied safety of American-operated buses, but the ambiguous corporate structures and non-transparent operating agreements between the Greyhound Defendants and the Grupo Defendants were misrepresented to them. (Id. at ¶¶ 63, 74.)
On or about February 22, 2013, Plaintiffs filed the FAC in the California Superior Court for the County ofLos Angeles. The FAC contains six claims: (1) Negligence; (2) Negligent Hiring/Retention/Training/Supervision/ Entrustment; (3) Negligent Misrepresentation; (4) Intentional Misrepresentation (Fraud); (5) Negligence (Agency); and (6) Negligence (Common Carrier). Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges not only that the driver of the bus was negligent in causing the accident, but also that the Defendants made negligent and intentional representations that "Plaintiffs' travel would be on safe, secure American buses" when Defendants knew those representations were untrue. (Opp'n at 2.)
The Defendants removed the action to this Court on July 19, 2013. (Notice of Removal (Doc. No. 1).) On November 12, 2103, the Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens. (Doc. No. 16.) With respect to the Motion to Stay Discovery, Defendants filed that motion on November 18, 2013. (Doc. No. 27.) Plaintiffs filed their Oppositions to both motions on December 3, 2013. (Doc. Nos. 33, 35.) On December 9, 2013, the Defendants filed Replies to the Oppositions. (Doc. Nos. 38, 39.) Along with the Reply to the forumnon conveniens motion, the Defendants also filed Objections to the Declarations filed by the Plaintiffs in support of their Oppositions.3 (Doc. No. 43.)
"The principle of forum non conveniens is simply that a court may resist imposition upon its jurisdiction even when jurisdiction is authorized by the letter of a general venue statute." Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 507 (1947). The forum non conveniens doctrine "is based on the inherent power of the courts to decline jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances." Paper Operations Consultants Int'l, Ltd. v. S.S. Hong Kong Amber, 513 F.2d 667, 670 (9th Cir. 1975).
"To prevail on a motion to dismiss based upon forum non conveniens, a defendant bears the burden of demonstrating an adequate alternative forum, and that the balance of private and public interest factors favors dismissal." Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 643 F.3d 1216, 1224 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104, 1118 (9th Cir. 2002)). Where the plaintiffs are citizens of the United States, the defendants must satisfy a "heavy burden of proof,"whereas "a foreign plaintiff's choice deserves less deference." Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp., 236 F.3d 1137, 1143 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 254 n. 22 (1981)).
According to Defendants, Mexico is an adequate alternative forum, and the balance of public and private factors favors adjudication of the Plaintiffs' claims in a Mexican court. (Mot. at 2.) Plaintiffs counter that Defendants have not met their burden under the forum non conveniens doctrine to dismiss the case, especially because Plaintiffs here are United States citizens. (Opp'n at 12.)
The first factor that the Court must consider in a forum non conveniens analysis is whether there is an "adequate, alternative forum" for the Plaintiffs to bring their claims. An adequate, alternative forum exists where: (1) defendants are amenable to service of process in the foreign forum and (2) the forum provides plaintiff with a sufficient remedy for his or her wrong. Dole Food Co., Inc., 303 F.3d at 1118 (citing Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1143 (citing, in turn, Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 254 n. 22)).
Five of the Defendants are already subject to jurisdiction in Mexico because they are Mexican residents (Sanchez, Portillo, Omnibus, Autobuses Americanos, and Grupo Estrella Blanca). (See Mot. at 11 n. 1; Declaration of Fernando Arturo Gonzales Gonzales ("Gonzalez Gonzalez Decl.") (Doc. No. 25) at ¶¶ 23-24.) Moreover, Defendants all agree to submit to jurisdiction in Mexico and waive any applicable statute of limitations that may bar the Plaintiffs' claims. (Mot. at 11 (). Accordingly, this element is satisfied.
Next, Defendants must show that Mexico provides the Plaintiffs with sufficient remedy for their wrongs. Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 433 F.3d 1163, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The Ninth Circuit has held that the inability to assert specific claims,for example, those pursuant to RICO and the Lanham Act, does not render a forum inadequate. See Lockman Found. v. Evangelical Alliance Mission, 930 F.2d 764, 768 (9th Cir. 1991).
Arguing that Mexico is an adequate forum, Defendants cite numerous other courts who have so found (See Mot. at 12 (). Defendants contend that any argument made by Plaintiffs that litigation outcomes in Mexico would be less favorable to them is not a sufficient basis to find that Mexico is an inadequate forum. (Id.)
Plaintiffs counter that Defendants have merely argued that Mexico has been declared to be an adequate alternative forum in the past, but such an argument, on its own, has been deemed insufficient by the Ninth Circuit in Alpha Therapeutic Corp. v. Nippon Hoso Kyokai, 199 F.3d 1078, 1090 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiffs rely on the decision in Alpha Therapeutic in vain; this...
To continue reading
Request your trial