Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02732/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02732-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TREVOR MOSS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

TIBERON MINERALS LTD.,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 07-2732 SC

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO

DISMISS FOR FORUM NON

CONVENIENS

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on the defendant Tiberon

Minerals Ltd.'s ("Defendant" or "Tiberon") Motion to Dismiss for

Forum Non Conveniens ("Motion"). See Docket No. 23. The

plaintiff Trevor Moss ("Plaintiff" or "Moss") filed an Opposition

and Tiberon submitted a Reply. See Docket Nos. 27, 32. For the

following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion.

II. BACKGROUND

Moss, a civil engineer, was hired by Tiberon to provide

consulting services in connection with a mining project in

Vietnam. Compl., Docket No. 1, ¶¶ 1, 4. At the time, Tiberon was

a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business in

Toronto, Ontario. Id. ¶ 3. It is not entirely clear where

Tiberon is now located. Moss asserts in his Complaint that

Case 3:07-cv-02732-SC Document 40 Filed 11/01/07 Page 1 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

Tiberon "is, and at all relevant times was, a Canadian

corporation, conducting business internationally, with its

principal place of business Toronto, Ontario." Id. (emphasis

added). In his Opposition, however, Moss contradicts this and

states that Tiberon "has relocated its offices from Ontario to

Vietnam . . . ." Opp'n at 1. Tiberon itself states that it "has

shifted most of its current operations to Viet Nam." Reply at 6. 

From these statements the Court infers that Tiberon is now located

primarily in Vietnam. In any event, the precise location of

Tiberon's current principal place of business, whether it is

Vietnam or Ontario, is tangential to the Court's holding.

Moss began working for Tiberon on August 1, 2005, at which

point he and Tiberon signed a consulting agreement ("the

Agreement"). Compl., Ex. A. The Agreement contained a Governing

Law provision which stated that the "provisions of this Agreement

shall be governed by, interpreted, and enforced in accordance with

the laws in force in the Province of Ontario." Id. On August 31,

2006, the "consulting relationship ended." Id. ¶ 9; Ex. A. Moss

alleges that after the consulting relationship was terminated he

was entitled to certain bonuses pursuant to the Agreement and that

Tiberon refused to pay these bonuses. Id. ¶ 13; Ex. A. Moss then

filed suit in this Court under two causes of action: breach of a

written agreement and violations of California Labor Code sections

200 et seq. See Compl. Tiberon has moved to dismiss the

Complaint for forum non conveniens.

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-02732-SC Document 40 Filed 11/01/07 Page 2 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

III. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

"A party moving to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens

must show two things: (1) the existence of an adequate

alternative forum, and (2) that the balance of private and public

interest factors favors dismissal." Lockman Found. v. Evangelical

Alliance Mission, 930 F.2d 764, 767 (9th Cir. 1991). 

The Ninth Circuit has stated that "while a U.S. citizen has

no absolute right to sue in a U.S. court, great deference is due

plaintiffs because a showing of convenience by a party who has

sued in his home forum will usually outweigh the inconvenience the

defendant may have shown." Contact Lumber Co. v. P.T. Moges

Shipping Co., Ltd., 918 F.2d 1446, 1449 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Nonetheless, "[a] citizen's forum choice should not be given

dispositive weight . . . ." Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S.

235, 255 n. 23 (1981). "[I]f the balance of conveniences suggests

that trial in the chosen forum would be unnecessarily burdensome

for the defendant or the court, dismissal is proper." Id. 

B. Analysis

1. Adequate Alternative Forum

"At the outset of any forum non conveniens inquiry, the court

must determine whether there exists an alternative forum. 

Ordinarily, this requirement will be satisfied when the defendant

is amenable to process in the other jurisdiction." Piper, 454

U.S. at 255 n. 22 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

In the present case, Tiberon has agreed to submit to

jurisdiction in Canada. Mot. at 2. In addition, Tiberon has

Case 3:07-cv-02732-SC Document 40 Filed 11/01/07 Page 3 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

agreed to waive any statute of limitations in Toronto that would

impact the case. Reply at 3. Thus, "the threshold test is

satisfied." Lockman Found., 930 F.2d at 768. "In rare

circumstances, however, where the remedy offered by the other

forum is clearly unsatisfactory, the other forum may not be an

adequate alternative . . . ." Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 255 n.

22. "Thus, for example, dismissal would not be appropriate where

the alternative forum does not permit litigation of the subject

matter of the dispute." Id. In the present case, Moss has

presented no arguments or evidence to indicate that a remedy

offered by the courts in Ontario would be "clearly

unsatisfactory." Id. Therefore, the Court finds that Ontario is

an adequate alternative forum.

2. Balance of Private and Public Interest Factors

If the existence of an adequate alternative forum is

demonstrated, courts "must consider the balance of private and

public interest factors to determine whether to dismiss on grounds

of forum non conveniens." Lockman Found., 930 U.S. at 769.

a. Private Interest Factors

"Private interest factors include: ease of access to sources

of proof; compulsory process to obtain the attendance of hostile

witnesses, and the cost of transporting friendly witnesses; and

other problems that interfere with an expeditious trial." Contact

Lumber, 918 F.2d at 1451.

The first private interest factor is the location of

evidentiary sources. Moss alleges that the necessary records are

in Australia, Vietnam, British Columbia or his possession. Opp'n

Case 3:07-cv-02732-SC Document 40 Filed 11/01/07 Page 4 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Tiberon has also submitted a declaration stating that "the

historical records of Tiberon are in storage in Toronto." 

Cresswell Decl. ¶ 5. Thus, although it is unclear whether the

records are in British Columbia or Ontario, it appears that these

records are in Canada. Moss correctly notes that British Columbia

is closer to San Francisco than to Ontario. Given the

complications of international travel today, however, it is hard to

believe that travel between British Columbia and San Francisco is

actually more convenient than travel between British Columbia and

Ontario.

2

 Caron is the former Board Chairman and Chief Executive of

Tiberon. Opp'n at 1.

5

at 14. Tiberon states that all of its books and records were

transferred from Ontario to British Columbia, Canada, on August

23, 2007.1 Mot. at 4. Thus, none of the records other than those

in Moss's possession are in California and a significant portion

of the records are in Canada. On the whole, the location of

evidentiary sources tips in favor of dismissal. 

The second private interest factor is the availability of

witnesses. Moss provides a list of thirteen witnesses who are

relevant to the matter at hand. Opp'n at 11-13. Only two of

these witnesses, one of whom is Moss himself, are located in

California. Id. Six are located in Australia, one in Colorado,

three in Vietnam, and one in Canada. Id. In addition, although

he was not on the list, Moss acknowledges that Mario Caron will be

an important witness and that Caron lives in Ontario.2 Opp'n at

1. Tiberon argues that at least three other witnesses live in or

around Toronto. Mot. at 4.

Although it is true that San Francisco is closer to Australia

and Vietnam than Ontario, once a witness is required to fly across

the Pacific Ocean, the additional flying time required to reach

Case 3:07-cv-02732-SC Document 40 Filed 11/01/07 Page 5 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 In his Complaint Moss also asserts a cause of action under

California Labor Code section 200 et seq. As discussed below,

however, the primary issue in the Complaint is whether Moss

fulfilled his obligations under the Agreement and was therefore

entitled to the bonus. This issue, according to the choice of law

clause in the Agreement, is to be determined pursuant to Canadian,

not California, law. 

6

Ontario is not so substantial so as to weigh heavily in favor of

retaining jurisdiction in San Francisco. Accordingly, the

availability of witnesses also weighs in favor of dismissal.

The final private interest factor is the policy favoring an

expeditious trial. This factor weighs in favor of a Canadian

forum. The contract at the heart of this dispute was formed

pursuant to Canadian law. More importantly, the contract contains

a clause requiring that any disputes "shall be governed by,

interpreted, and enforced in accordance with the laws in force in

the Province of Ontario." Compl., Ex. A. Finally, Canadian

courts will be able to apply Canadian contract law more

efficiently than this Court.3 For these reasons, the private

interest factors tip in favor of dismissal.

b. Public Interest Factors

"Public interest factors encompass court congestion, the

local interest in resolving the controversy, and the preference

for having a forum apply a law with which it is familiar." 

Contact Lumber, 918 F.2d at 1452.

As already noted, the primary issue to be decided in this

case, whether Moss met the agreed upon benchmarks and therefore

was entitled to a bonus, is governed by Canadian law. See Compl.,

Ex. A (stating that the "provisions of this Agreement shall be

Case 3:07-cv-02732-SC Document 40 Filed 11/01/07 Page 6 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 Court congestion, in the present matter, was not raised by

either party, is not an issue in the eyes of the Court and

therefore is not discussed.

7

governed by, interpreted, and enforced in accordance with the laws

in force in the Province of Ontario").

The first public interest factor to consider is the local

interest in resolving the controversy.4

 California has a strong

interest in providing a forum for its citizens to vindicate their

rights. See, e.g., Lockman Found., 930 F.2d at 771 (holding that

California had an interest in the lawsuit "because of its interest

in seeing its citizens compensated for torts committed against

them"). Canada, however, also has a strong interest in resolving

the controversy. At the time the controversy arose, Tiberon was a

Canadian corporation. Compl. ¶ 3. More importantly, Canadian law

will govern the contract dispute and Canadian courts have an

interest in resolving Canadian-law claims. In balancing these

competing interests, the Court finds that this factor does not

favor either dismissal or retention. 

The final public interest factor, the preference for having a

forum apply a law with which it is familiar, clearly favors

dismissal. Canadian courts are familiar with Canadian law; U.S.

courts are not.

Moss asserts that because his second claim was brought

pursuant to California Labor Code section 200 et seq., there is a

strong interest in retaining jurisdiction in California. Opp'n at

17. The Court disagrees.

First, Moss's second cause of action is brought under

Case 3:07-cv-02732-SC Document 40 Filed 11/01/07 Page 7 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5 Section 200 et seq. of the California Labor Code deals with

the immediate payment of wages upon discharge or layoff and the

resulting penalties for failing to make such payments.

8

California state law, not federal law. Although a federal court

in California would likely be more familiar with California state

law than a Canadian court, the fact remains that both a United

States federal court and a Canadian court would be required to

apply law from another jurisdiction. Thus, while litigating the

California state law claim in federal court might be more

efficient than litigating in a Canadian court, the benefits are

not overwhelming.

Second, the primary claim in Moss's Complaint is that Tiberon

improperly withheld a bonus that Moss had earned. This claim is

encapsulated in Moss's first cause of action alleging breach of a

written contract. Under the Agreement, this claim is subject to

Canadian law. Moss's second cause of action, alleging violations

of the California Labor Code, hinges on resolution of the first

claim.5 If it is found that Tiberon is indeed liable to Moss for

the unpaid bonus, then Moss may be entitled to recover penalties

under the California Labor Code as well. However, as both parties

agreed that Canadian law would govern any contract disputes, then

regardless of where the dispute is litigated, the contract dispute

must first be resolved according to Canadian law. Either a United

States federal court must apply Canadian law and then California

state law, or a Canadian court must apply Canadian law and then

California state law. On the whole, the balance favors a Canadian

forum.

Case 3:07-cv-02732-SC Document 40 Filed 11/01/07 Page 8 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 9

3. Applicability of U.S. Law

"Before dismissing a case for forum non covneniens, a

district court must first make a choice of law determination." 

Contact Lumber, 918 F.2d at 1450 (internal quotation marks and

citations omitted). The Agreement was clear that Ontario law

would apply. See Compl., Ex. A (stating that the "provisions of

this Agreement shall be governed by, interpreted, and enforced in

accordance with the laws in force in the Province of Ontario"). 

Given the language of the agreement, it is clear that Canadian law

applies.

Even if the choice of law determination were not clear, "the

choice of law analysis is only determinative when the case

involves a United States statute requiring venue in the United

States, such as the Jones Act or the Federal Employers' Liability

Act." Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp., 236 F.3d 1137, 1148 (9th Cir.

2001). "The purpose of the choice of law inquiry in a forum non

conveniens analysis is to determine if one of these statutes would

apply." Id. "Where no such law is implicated, the choice of law

determination is given much less deference on a forum non

conveniens inquiry." Id.

Although not determinative, the Court nonetheless finds that

the choice of law issue weighs in favor of dismissal. The Court

otherwise would be required to apply Canadian law, a law with

which it is not familiar. See Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1148 n. 6

(stating "[t]he choice of law inquiry would, nevertheless, counsel

in favor of dismissing the suit. The district court found it

would likely be required to interpret and apply New Zealand law,

Case 3:07-cv-02732-SC Document 40 Filed 11/01/07 Page 9 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

 The Ninth Circuit has apparently not yet addressed this

issue.

10

law with which it is unfamiliar. . . . [B]ecause New Zealand law

is likely to apply in this suit, the choice of law determination

weighs in favor of dismissal."). 

Finally, other Circuits have held that a mandatory forumselection clause designating a forum different from that chosen by

the plaintiff eliminates the presumption in favor of the

plaintiff's choice of forum.6 See Online Sys., Inc. v.

Koninklijke PTT Nederland N.V., 145 F.3d 505, 511 (2nd Cir. 1998);

see also AAR Int'l, Inc. v. Nimelias Enters., 250 F.3d 510, 526

(7th Cir. 2001) (stating "that by agreeing to a mandatory forum

selection agreement, a party waives objections to venue in the

chosen forum on the basis of cost or inconvenience to self"). 

While the clause contained in the Agreement relates to choice

of law rather than forum, the Court nonetheless finds the forumclause reasoning instructive. The Governing Law provision in the

Agreement stated that the "provisions of this Agreement shall be

governed by, interpreted, and enforced in accordance with the laws

in force in the Province of Ontario." Compl., Ex. A. Admittedly,

this language leaves open the possibility that the parties could

bring their claims in other forums so long as those forums applied

the law of Ontario. The Court finds, however, that Moss's consent

to litigate all contract issues according to Canadian law weighs

in favor of dismissing the case for forum non conveniens. 

Finally, Moss argues that "Tiberon has not met its burden of

satisfying the California requirements for choice of law." Opp'n

Case 3:07-cv-02732-SC Document 40 Filed 11/01/07 Page 10 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

 As the above discussion of choice of law indicates, "[t]he

purpose of the choice of law inquiry in a forum non conveniens

analysis is to determine if one of these statutes would apply." 

Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1148. If one of the statutes mandating U.S.

jurisdiction does not apply, the choice of law analysis is not

significant. Id.

11

at 16. Assuming, arguendo, that Tiberon even has such a burden,7

the Court nonetheless finds that the California requirements are

met.

"A federal court ordinarily applies the choice-of-law rules

of the state in which it sits." Consul Ltd. v. Solide Enters.

Inc., 802 F.2d 1143, 1146 (9th Cir. 1986). "Thus the California

action will be governed by California choice-of-law rules . . . ." 

Id. "California will honor the parties' choice of law unless: 

(1) the chosen state has no substantial relation to the parties or

the transaction; or (2) the choice results in violation of

California public policy or the evasion of a California statute." 

Id. at 1146-47.

Moss argues that Ontario does not have a substantial relation

to the parties or the transaction. The Court disagrees. At the

time that Moss and Tiberon entered into the contract at issue,

Tiberon was incorporated in Ontario and had its principal place of

business in Ontario. The contract was formed pursuant to Ontario

law and, most importantly, Ontario law now governs the

interpretation of the contract. This is a substantial relation.

Finally, dismissal of the action for forum non conveniens

does not violate any California public policy or statute. 

Therefore, assuming that they even apply, the California choice of

law requirements are met, Canadian law applies, and dismissal is

Case 3:07-cv-02732-SC Document 40 Filed 11/01/07 Page 11 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8 A forum non conveniens motion may be granted conditionally

in order to avoid unjust results. See Contact Lumber, 918 F.2d at

1450; Leetsch v. Freedman, 260 F.3d 1100, 1104 (9th Cir. 2001).

12

appropriate.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed herein, Defendant's Motion to

Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens is GRANTED on the condition that

Tiberon submit to jurisdiction in Canada and waive any statute of

limitations defenses.8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2007 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-02732-SC Document 40 Filed 11/01/07 Page 12 of 12