Plaintiff investors, a German citizen and a Luxembourg corporation, sought review of an order from the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), which stayed under the forum non conveniens doctrine an action alleging that defendants, residents of California who disputed the ownership of certain real property in Mexico, had tortiously interfered with a Mexican business transaction.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. counsels on LLC versus LP
Overview
The investors alleged that the California residents had induced a third party to renege on a sale of real property in Mexico, causing the failure of a development project. The California residents presented evidence that the project had failed to obtain a permit because its environmental impact statement was inadequate, not because of their alleged interference, and they stipulated that they consented to the jurisdiction of the courts of Mexico and to the tolling of limitations. The court held that the California residents had satisfied their burden under Code Civ. Proc., § 410.30, and the decisional law to demonstrate that Mexico was a suitable alternative forum and that the balancing of public and private factors pointed to Mexico as a more convenient forum. The court declined to take judicial notice under Evid. Code, § 459, subd. (a), of new evidence on Mexican law because it was not timely submitted to the trial court for consideration under Evid. Code, § 453. The evidence presented below indicated that a remedy was available under the Mexican legal doctrine of acto ilicito. Most of the third party witnesses were located in Mexico, and the alleged harm all occurred in Mexico.
Outcome
The court affirmed the order.