David v. Medtronic, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RUBIN, Acting P. J. —
When a defendant moves to dismiss a multi-defendant action for forum non conveniens, the defendant is required to establish that an alternative forum exists in which the action could be brought against all defendants. (American Cemwood. Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 431, 433 [104 Cal.Rptr.2d 670] (American Cemwood).) If this rule is enforced without exception, an enterprising plaintiff could preclude a forum non conveniens dismissal by naming an additional defendant over whom the alternative forum could not exercise jurisdiction. The…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Wyndham Associates v. BintliffCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1968
- Stangvik v. Shiley Inc.California Supreme Court · 1991
- Hanberry v. Hearst Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1969
- Donald R. Wild and Diana H. Wild v. Subscription Plus, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002
- In Re Rezulin Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2001
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- In re Essure Product CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2024
- In re Essure Product CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2023
- Pilliod v. Monsanto Co.California Court of Appeal · 2021
- United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc. v. Apical Industries, Inc. CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2021