19 Cited authorities

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno
454 U.S. 235 (1981) Cited 4,797 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that potential change in law cannot, by itself, fend off dismissal under forum non conveniens absent showing that new law is "clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory"
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert
330 U.S. 501 (1947) Cited 5,636 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that private interest factors include the "availability of compulsory process for attendance of un-willing, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses"
Landis v. North American Co.
299 U.S. 248 (1936) Cited 8,463 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a decision to stay proceedings "calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance"
Stangvik v. Shiley Inc.
54 Cal.3d 744 (Cal. 1991) Cited 189 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding the private interests of the parties favored trial in Scandinavia, in part reasoning: "It is true that much, but not all, of the evidence concerning liability exists in California; but virtually all the evidence relating to damages is in Scandinavia," footnote omitted
Morris v. AGFA Corp.
144 Cal.App.4th 1452 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 63 times
Upholding stay based on finding that California was a seriously inconvenient forum for Texas plaintiffs suing for toxic exposure of decedent in Texas
Century Indemnity Co. v. Bank of America
58 Cal.App.4th 408 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 34 times
In Century, a coverage action brought by both resident and nonresident insurers against a nonresident corporate defendant, was properly stayed in favor of a first-filed action in the venue where the allegedly covered event took place (Hawaii).
Thomson v. Continental Ins. Co.
66 Cal.2d 738 (Cal. 1967) Cited 62 times
In Thomson v. Continental Ins. Co., supra, which was not a custody case, we explained generally the principle involved in staying a California action: "Granting a stay... is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.
Appalachian Ins. Company v. Superior Court
162 Cal.App.3d 427 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) Cited 31 times
Stating the fact that "forum non conveniens protects the public interest as well as that of the litigants is paramount in our determination that the [service of suit clause] . . . does not preclude the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens"
Goodwine v. Superior Court
63 Cal.2d 481 (Cal. 1965) Cited 60 times
Noting general desirability of litigating local matters in local courts
Farmland Irrigation Co. v. Dopplmaier
48 Cal.2d 208 (Cal. 1957) Cited 70 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Farmland Irr. Co. v. Dopplmaier, supra (1957) 48 Cal.2d 208, 222, the court in holding that a patent license agreement was assignable pursuant to the policy "clearly manifested" by "the statutes in this state... in favor of the free transferability of all types of property, including rights under contracts," stated "The terms and purpose of a contract may show however, that it was intended to be nonassignable.
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 22,753 times 16 Legal Analyses
Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

opposition to motion to dismiss or stay and supporting declarations

19 Cited authorities

Holding that potential change in law cannot, by itself, fend off dismissal under forum non conveniens absent showing that new law is "clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory"

Holding that private interest factors include the "availability of compulsory process for attendance of un-willing, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses"

Holding that a decision to stay proceedings "calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance"

Holding the private interests of the parties favored trial in Scandinavia, in part reasoning: "It is true that much, but not all, of the evidence concerning liability exists in California; but virtually all the evidence relating to damages is in Scandinavia," footnote omitted

Upholding stay based on finding that California was a seriously inconvenient forum for Texas plaintiffs suing for toxic exposure of decedent in Texas

In Century, a coverage action brought by both resident and nonresident insurers against a nonresident corporate defendant, was properly stayed in favor of a first-filed action in the venue where the allegedly covered event took place (Hawaii).

In Thomson v. Continental Ins. Co., supra, which was not a custody case, we explained generally the principle involved in staying a California action: "Granting a stay... is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.

Stating the fact that "forum non conveniens protects the public interest as well as that of the litigants is paramount in our determination that the [service of suit clause] . . . does not preclude the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens"

Noting general desirability of litigating local matters in local courts

Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system