Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift Forum Non Conveniens Stay
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230
DATE: 06/10/2026 TIME: 9:00 and 9:01 A.M.
LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 22CV407623 Shiue-Mei Kou et al Motion: Order vs Chih-Ling Chou et al Please control click or scroll down to Line 1 LINE 2 24CV432761 JRK Investors, Inc. et Motion: Summary Judgment / Adjudication al vs Please control click or scroll down to Line 2 (for 2 & 3) Fairfield Great Oaks LP et al LINE 3 || || || LINE 4 24CV443124 Lozzie Jessie, IV Motion: Compel vs Zanotto’s Willow Glen, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Dr. Sukhdeep Ahuja and Inc. Dr. Jennifer Bruha and Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff.
The Court has received no opposition from Plaintiff. “[T]he failure to file an opposition creates an inference that the motion or demurrer is meritorious.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Good Cause Appearing, Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED. Sanctions are appropriate but the requested amount is excessive as the anticipated three hours for reviewing Plaintiff’s opposition and preparing reply brief is not applicable. Court GRANTS sanctions in the amount of $750.00 for costs incurred in bringing this action. If no one contests this tentative ruling, the amount will be further reduced by one hour.
Defendant to prepare the final order, accompanied by the necessary Forms EFS-020, within 10 days of the date of the hearing.
LINE 5 24CV450632 Subramanyam Motion: Compel Answers Ramaswamy vs Please control click or scroll down to Line 5 PPC Sage LLC et al
Calendar Line 1 Shiue-Mei Kou et al vs Chih-Ling Chou et al
Plaintiffs' Motion to Lift Forum Non Conveniens Stay
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 17, 2024, the Court stayed this action pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens in favor of litigation in Taiwan. Plaintiffs now move to lift the stay, contending that Taiwan is not a suitable or available alternative forum because Taiwan courts lack jurisdiction over Defendants and because any Taiwan civil action is now barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
LEGAL STANDARD
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30 authorizes a California court to stay or dismiss an action when, in the interest of substantial justice, the action should be heard in another forum.
Under Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, the Court must first determine whether the proposed alternative forum is suitable. A forum is generally suitable when the defendant is subject to jurisdiction there and the action is not barred by the statute of limitations. (Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1464.)
Where a stay has been imposed, a plaintiff may seek relief upon a showing that the alternative forum is unavailable or otherwise unsuitable. However, a party ordinarily must make a goodfaith effort to pursue relief in the designated forum before claiming that forum is unavailable. (See Diaz-Barba v. Superior Court (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1470.)
ANALYSIS
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have made substantial efforts to pursue relief in Taiwan. The record reflects that Plaintiffs initiated proceedings in Taiwan and sought review through multiple governmental and judicial channels. Accordingly, the Court does not find that Plaintiffs acted in bad faith or deliberately attempted to frustrate the foreign proceedings.
The dispositive question is whether Plaintiffs have demonstrated that Taiwan is presently unavailable as a forum.
Plaintiffs contend that Taiwan lacks jurisdiction over Defendants because the alleged conduct occurred in California and Defendants reside in California. Plaintiffs further rely on rulings and communications from Taiwan authorities suggesting that California is the more appropriate forum.
Defendants respond that Taiwan jurisdiction remains available under Article 25 of the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure because Defendants have expressly agreed to submit to Taiwan jurisdiction and not contest it. Defendants have submitted sworn declarations stating that they will appear in Taiwan and accept jurisdiction if a civil action is filed.
Plaintiffs also contend that any Taiwan civil action is now barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations and that Article 147 of the Taiwan Civil Code prevents Defendants from waiving that defense.
Defendants dispute that interpretation. They rely on Article 144 of the Taiwan Civil Code and expert testimony indicating that expiration of the limitations period does not extinguish the claim itself but instead provides a defense that may be asserted or declined by the defendant. Defendants contend that their express agreement not to invoke any limitations defense resolves the issue.
On the present record, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiffs have established the unavailability of a Taiwan civil forum. The Court is presented with competing expert opinions regarding the effect of Articles 144 and 147, the availability of jurisdiction under Article 25, and the legal consequences of Defendants' consent to jurisdiction and waiver of defenses.
Most significantly, Plaintiffs have not filed a standalone civil action in Taiwan. As a result, no Taiwan civil court has been asked to determine whether Defendants' submission to jurisdiction is effective, whether a limitations defense may be waived under the circumstances presented here, or whether the action may proceed on the merits.
The Court is not persuaded that the existing criminal proceedings and related rulings conclusively resolve those questions. While those proceedings may provide evidence relevant to forum suitability, they do not establish that a Taiwan civil court would necessarily refuse to hear a properly filed civil action where Defendants have expressly agreed to appear and submit to jurisdiction.
Under these circumstances, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not yet demonstrated that Taiwan is unavailable or unsuitable as a matter of law.
DISPOSITION
The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Plaintiffs shall commence a standalone civil action in Taiwan within 60 days of notice of entry of this order. As a condition of the continued stay, Defendants shall: appear in the Taiwan civil action; submit to the jurisdiction of the Taiwan court; refrain from asserting any personal jurisdiction objection; and maintain the positions represented to this Court regarding any statute-of-limitations defense available under Taiwan law.
The parties shall file a joint status report regarding the Taiwan proceedings within 150 days of notice of entry of this order.
Plaintiffs may renew the motion at any time upon a ruling by a Taiwan court declining jurisdiction, finding the action time-barred, or otherwise refusing to adjudicate the matter on the merits.
Case will be continued for case status review in approximately 180 days. Defendant to prepare the order accompanied by the EFS-020 Form within seven days of the hearing.