Fox Factory, Inc. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County
11 Cal.App.5th 197 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a foreign, non-resident plaintiff files a lawsuit in California, their choice of forum is entitled to less deference than a resident's choice, and a defendant moving for dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds is not required to show that California is a 'seriously inconvenient' forum.
Facts:
- Peter Isherwood, a Canadian citizen and resident of British Columbia, purchased a mountain bike from a retail shop in British Columbia.
- The bike was equipped with front fork racing shocks manufactured by Fox Factory, Inc. (Fox), a California corporation.
- On April 24, 2011, while mountain biking downhill in British Columbia, Isherwood landed a jump.
- During the landing, the steerer tube in the Fox-manufactured shocks allegedly broke.
- Isherwood was thrown forward from the bicycle, resulting in a severe spinal cord injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Peter Isherwood sued Fox Factory, Inc. and several other component manufacturers in Santa Clara County Superior Court (a trial court).
- Isherwood also filed a separate lawsuit in Vancouver, British Columbia, related to the same incident.
- The other defendants in the California action obtained summary judgment, leaving Fox as the sole defendant.
- Fox filed a motion to dismiss or stay the California action on the ground of forum non conveniens.
- The superior court denied Fox's motion, applying a 'seriously inconvenient' forum standard.
- Fox petitioned the California Court of Appeal, Sixth District, for a writ of mandate to compel the superior court to vacate its order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant moving to dismiss a case filed by a foreign, non-resident plaintiff on the grounds of forum non conveniens have the burden of proving that the chosen forum is 'seriously inconvenient'?
Opinions:
Majority - Elia
No. A defendant moving for dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds against a foreign plaintiff is not required to show that California is a 'seriously inconvenient' forum. The California Supreme Court's decision in Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. established that a foreign plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to less deference than that of a California resident. The 'seriously inconvenient' standard, articulated in cases like Ford Motor Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America, applies when a resident plaintiff's choice of their home forum is challenged, as there is a strong presumption of convenience in such cases. However, applying that high standard to a non-resident plaintiff contravenes Stangvik's guidance. Because the trial court applied the incorrect and more stringent legal standard, it abused its discretion. The case must therefore be sent back to the trial court to reconsider the motion by balancing the relevant private and public interest factors without giving substantial weight to the plaintiff's choice of forum.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a two-tiered approach to forum non conveniens motions in California, sharply distinguishing between resident and non-resident plaintiffs. By rejecting the 'seriously inconvenient' standard for foreign plaintiffs, the court makes it significantly easier for defendants to transfer cases out of California when the underlying dispute has minimal connection to the state. This ruling protects California courts from being overburdened with litigation involving foreign parties and events, aligning with public policy interests in judicial economy. For future litigants, it establishes a clear precedent that a plaintiff's non-residency substantially weakens their choice of a California forum, shifting the balance in favor of an alternative, more convenient jurisdiction.
Unlock the full brief for Fox Factory, Inc. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County