HAMILTON v. HEAVENLY VALLEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR MAY 15, 2026

3. HAMILTON v. HEAVENLY VALLEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, SC20210148

Motion to Stay or Dismiss

On November 18, 2025, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30,

intervenors Randy Dean Quint, John Linn, and Mark Molina (collectively, the “Colorado

Plaintiffs”) filed a motion to stay or dismiss the instant action based on the doctrine of

forum non conveniens.2

On January 12, 2026, plaintiffs Christopher Hamilton, Anna Gibson, Zachariah Saiz-

Hawes, William Berrier, Matthew Allen, Adam Heggen, and Paul Roberds (collectively, the “Opposing Plaintiffs”), and defendants The Vail Corporation and Heavenly Valley

(collectively, “Defendants”) filed their respective oppositions.

On February 13, 2026, the Colorado Plaintiffs filed a timely reply.

1. Preliminary Matter

On September 22, 2025, the court denied the Colorado Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss

filed April 18, 2025. Opposing Plaintiffs and Defendants both contend that the instant

motion is procedurally barred. Defendants claim the motion is actually a motion for

reconsideration and is therefore barred under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008;3

and Opposing Plaintiffs claim, without citing any relevant legal authority, that the

Colorado Plaintiffs waived their argument of forum non conveniens by failing to raise it

in their previous motion to dismiss.

2 The hearing on this motion has been continued a few times based upon stipulation of

the parties. 3 Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 provides in pertinent part: “A party who originally

made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, ... may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which case, it shall be shown by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (b).)

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR MAY 15, 2026

In Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 449

(Williamson), the court held that “[Code of Civil Procedure] section 410.30, subdivision (a)

grants a trial court independent authority to determine whether California is a convenient

forum” based on evidence not previously presented to the court, “even if a party's forum

non conveniens motion does not otherwise satisfy the requirements of section 1008 for

reconsideration of a prior order or renewal of an earlier motion.” (See Williamson, supra,

at pp. 452–454.)

The court notes that the Colorado Plaintiffs’ previous motion to dismiss did not request a stay and did not raise the issue of forum non conveniens.4 The only portion of

the instant motion that seeks the same relief is the request for dismissal. However,

pursuant to Williamson, the Colorado Plaintiffs’ instant motion under Code of Civil

Procedure section 410.30, subdivision (a) is not barred under Code of Civil Procedure

section 1008.

2. Request for Judicial Notice

Defendants request the court to take judicial notice of 29 documents. However,

pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, the court denies the request because said

materials are not “necessary, helpful, or relevant” to the instant motion. (See Jordache

Enterprises, Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1998) 18 Cal.4th 739, 748, fn. 6.)

3. Legal Principles

Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30 provides: “When a court upon motion of a party or its own motion finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should

be heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall stay or dismiss the action in whole

or in part on any conditions that may be just.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.30, subd. (a).) “The

statute codifies the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens.” (St. Paul Fire &

4 In their previous motion to dismiss, the Colorado Plaintiffs attempted to argue forum

non conveniens for the first time in their reply brief. However, the court did not consider this argument because it was not properly raised in their moving papers.

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR MAY 15, 2026

Marine Ins. Co. v. AmerisourceBergen Corp. (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1, 13.) “Forum non

conveniens is an equitable doctrine invoking the discretionary power of a court to

decline to exercise the jurisdiction it has over a transitory cause of action when it

believes that the action may be more appropriately and justly tried elsewhere.”

(Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751.) “The doctrine of forum non

conveniens is not jurisdictional.”5 (Credit Lyonnai Bank Nederland, N.V. v. Manatt,

Phelps Rothernberg & Tunney (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1424, 1430–1431, fn. 8,

superseded by statute on another point by Beckman v. Thompson (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 481, 487, fn. 4.)

“In determining whether to grant a motion based on forum non conveniens, a court

must first determine whether the alternate forum is a ‘suitable’ place for trial. If it is, the

next step is to consider the private interests of the litigants and the interests of the

public in retaining the action for trial in California.” (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751.)

“The trial court’s first determination, whether there is a suitable forum, is a

nondiscretionary legal question subject to de novo review. [Citations.] The second

determination, the weighing of the private and public factors, is discretionary and

subject to review only for an abuse of discretion....” (Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144

Cal.App.4th 1452, 1464.)

4. Discussion

“A forum is suitable if there is jurisdiction and no statute of limitations bar to the action. It is sufficient that the action can be brought, although not necessarily won, in

the suitable alternative forum.” (Morris, supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at p. 1464.)

The court notes that the Colorado Plaintiffs’ request to stay or dismiss this action

based on forum non conveniens would have the result of litigating this case in the

federal district court in Colorado. However, this court does not have the authority to

5 The Colorado Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding this court’s jurisdiction over the dispute

have already been ruled upon and are immaterial to the issue of forum non conveniens.

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR MAY 15, 2026

directly consolidate the instant case with the Colorado action; that would require a

separate motion. Defendants’ arguments regarding the scope of the pending Colorado

action (Defs.’ Opp. at 10:6–16) is not relevant to the initial question in this forum non

conveniens analysis of whether the federal district court in Colorado is a suitable forum.

Federal courts have two different sources of subject matter jurisdiction as relevant

here. Diversity jurisdiction arises when opposing parties are citizens of different states

(28 U.S.C. § 1332), and federal question jurisdiction gives the federal courts jurisdiction

if the action arises under federal law (28 U.S.C. § 1331). If the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction, it may also exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related claims

that would not otherwise have been within the federal court’s jurisdiction. (28 U.S.C.

§ 1367.)

The Colorado Plaintiffs’ briefing does not expressly articulate why it contends the

federal district court in Colorado would have federal subject-matter jurisdiction over the

instant case, which asserts California state law claims only.6 Presumably, the Colorado

Plaintiffs’ position is that the federal district court has federal diversity jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

However, diversity jurisdiction requires “complete” diversity between the plaintiffs

and defendants. (See Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger (1978) 437 U.S. 365, 373

(“diversity jurisdiction does not exist unless each defendant is a citizen of a different

State from each plaintiff.”).) In this case, both Defendants are incorporated or have their principal place of

business in Colorado. Each of the Opposing Plaintiffs is domiciled in California. But, the

Colorado Plaintiffs are all domiciled in Colorado. Because there is not complete

diversity, the federal district court in Colorado does not have federal diversity

6 On this point, the Colorado Plaintiffs’ opening brief merely states, “Here, the ‘alternate

forum’ i.e. the DOC ‘is a “suitable” place for trial’ because Vail is headquartered in Colorado and the ‘principal place of business []is presumptively a convenient forum.’ [Citation.]” (Mtn. at 4:3–5.)

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR MAY 15, 2026

jurisdiction, and is therefore not a suitable forum. Accordingly, the motion to stay or

dismiss this action based on forum non conveniens is denied.

In the alternative, even if the federal court in Colorado were a suitable forum, the

court would still find that the balancing of private and public interest factors do not

weigh in favor of trying the case in the federal court in Colorado.

“The private interest factors are those that make trial and the enforceability of the

ensuing judgment expeditious and relatively inexpensive, such as the ease of access to

sources of proof, the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses. The public interest factors

include avoidance of overburdening local courts with congested calendars, protecting

the interests of potential jurors so that they are not called upon to decide cases in which

the local community has little concern, and weighing the competing interests of

California and the alternate jurisdiction in the litigation.” (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at

p. 751.)

The Colorado Plaintiffs claim the applicable factors favor trying the instant case in

the federal court in Colorado because: (1) Vail is headquartered in Colorado; (2) the

unlawful employment policies, practices, and procedures were formulated and

implemented in Colorado; (3) key witnesses and evidence are located in Colorado; and

(4) Vail is subject to general jurisdiction in Colorado. (Mtn. at 1:9–13.) Additionally, the

Colorado Plaintiffs claim the Colorado action pleads the broadest claims and is the most advanced. (Mtn. at 1:13–14.)

The claims in the instant case are California state law wage and hour claims. The

Colorado Plaintiffs’ motion makes the blanket claim that key witnesses and evidence are

located in Colorado but they cite to no evidence in support of this claim. Even if

employment policies and practices were formulated in Colorado, it appears that the

relevant business records (e.g., timesheets, etc.) would largely be located in California.

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR MAY 15, 2026

Lastly, the Colorado Plaintiffs claim the Colorado action pleads the broadest claims

and is the most advance. However, the court notes that a settlement remains pending in

the instant case.

TENTATIVE RULING # 3: THE COLORADO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STAY OR DISMISS

UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 410.30 IS DENIED. NO HEARING ON THIS

MATTER WILL BE HELD (LEWIS v. SUPERIOR COURT (1999) 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247),

UNLESS A NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAR AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS

TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY TELEPHONE

TO THE COURT AT (530) 573-3042 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS

ISSUED. NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF AN INTENT TO APPEAR MUST BE MADE BY

TELEPHONE OR IN PERSON. PROOF OF SERVICE OF SAID NOTICE MUST BE FILED PRIOR

TO OR AT THE HEARING.