Global Fin. Distribs. v. Superior Court, No. 291814 (D2d7 May 13, 2019)
The Code of Civil Procedure has two different statutes addressed to motions to dismiss or stay for forum nonconveniens—§§ 418.10 and 410.30.
Section 418.10 says the motion can be filed alongside a demurrer or other pleadings motion and doesn’t constitute a general appearance. But if the defendant doesn’t move at the time it demurs or answer, it waives “the issues of lack of personal jurisdiction, inadequacy of process, inadequacy of service of process, inconvenient forum, and delay in prosecution.”
Section 410.30, on the other hand, generally permits a motion to stay or dismiss, without a time limit. And then it adds that § 418.10 doesn’t apply to a motion to stay or dismiss by a defendant who has made a general appearance.
There’s clearly some tension there. The Court, relying on Britton v. Dallas Airmotive, Inc., 153 Cal. App. 4th 127 (2007), nonetheless finds the statutes to be reconcilable. Section 418.10 applies to nonconveniens challenges brought before a general appearance, while § 410.30 applies to post-appearance challenges. Post-appearance challenges are sometimes necessary because the grounds to find the forum inconvenient might not come up until discovery. The waiver language in § 418.10 is weird, for sure. But the legislative history of the two provisions makes pretty clear that the Legislature clearly intended § 410.30 to permit forum non challenges after a general appearance.
Writ granted.
No comments:
Post a Comment