Shiley Inc. v. Superior Cour

6 Cal. Rptr. 2d 38 (Ct. App. 1992)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Shiley (D), incorporated in California, and Pfizer, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York, produced artificial heart valves in this state for worldwide distribution. Grindley, a California corporation, supplied flanges for those products. Real parties in interest are 39 plaintiffs (Ps)who filed complaints for damages, asserting product liability and related claims arising from the implantation of petitioners' heart valves at hospitals outside California. The vast majority of the plaintiffs were not residents of the state of California. The valves have functioned since implantation, but Ps allege they are suffering physical and emotional distress as a result of the knowledge that the valves may be defective and may fracture or malfunction without warning, causing death or severe physical injury. Because the valves have not failed, under California law there is currently but one viable cause of action, for fraud. (Khan v. Shiley Inc. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 848, 857-858 [266 Cal.Rptr. 106].) Nevertheless, plaintiffs' complaints assert theories of strict liability, negligence, breach of express and implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, in addition to fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment. D made a special appearance to dismiss or stay the suits on forum non conveniens grounds. Ds offered to stipulate: (1) to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of plaintiffs' home states; (2) to use best efforts to make past or present employees reasonably available to testify at trial in plaintiffs' home states at petitioners' cost, if so ordered within the discretion of the courts of plaintiffs' home states; (3) to obey any discovery orders of the courts of plaintiffs' home states; (4) to agree that any statutes of limitations shall have been tolled during the pendency of these actions in California; (5) to make documents in their possession in California available for inspection, at petitioners' expense, as required by the courts of plaintiffs' home states; (6) to pay any judgment rendered by the courts of plaintiffs' home states; and, (7) to agree that any depositions in plaintiffs' home states might proceed under section 2029. The stipulation is identical to that offered by Shiley and Pfizer in the Stangvik case. (See Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 750, fn. 2.) The superior court denied the motions to stay or dismiss. The court stated that petitioners had 'failed to show the kind of weighty reasons to interfere with the plaintiff's [sic] choice of forum that case law requires. The judge found it rather ludicrous for D residing in Orange County saying it is an inconvenient forum to try a case here rather than Florida, Washington, and Oregon.