What is the test for a motion to stay or dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Simon v. Stang, H038036 (Cal. App. 2013):
In ruling on a motion to stay or dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, the trial court is not required to expressly state its reasoning in its order. (Hahn v. Diaz-Barba
Page 8
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Can a motion to dismiss be dismissed on the grounds that the motion is invalid on other grounds? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for dismissing a motion to dismiss a motion for summary dismissal? (California, United States of America)
Does the Defendant have any grounds to argue that it was error to deny the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Motion to Dismiss under section 995 of the Penal Code? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for dismissing a motion to dismiss an action on the grounds that the pleadings are fictitious or sham? (California, United States of America)
What is the difference between a motion of dismissal and a motion to dismiss for violation of the speedy trial right? (California, United States of America)
What is the burden of proof for a motion to dismiss a motion where the motion is to be heard at a different venue? (California, United States of America)
Can a motion to stay or dismiss on the grounds of inconvenient forum be successful? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for dismissing a motion to dismiss a charge of assault on the grounds of speedy trial? (California, United States of America)
Can a defendant obtain a new trial on the grounds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion to deny the motion on the same grounds as the previous motion? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for denying a motion for a new trial on the grounds that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion under the first two grounds? (California, United States of America)
