Filed 7/3/24 Pacific Department Stores Co. v. Chang CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has 

not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

PACIFIC DEPARTMENT 

STORES CO. LTD.,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

CHI CHENG CHANG et al.,

Defendants and

Respondents.

 B328364

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 20STCV49851)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Maurice A. Leiter, Judge. Affirmed.

WHGC and Michael G. York for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Husch Blackwell, Jules S. Zeman, Kevin Khachatryan, 

Paul A. Calfo and Jamie Steiner for Defendants and 

Respondents.
2

Plaintiff and appellant Pacific Department Stores, Co. Ltd. 

(appellant) appeals the order granting the motion of defendants 

and respondents Chi Cheng Chang and Shih En Chang 

(respondents) to stay the action based on forum non conveniens. 

Appellant also challenges the denial of its ex parte application to 

shorten time on its motion for reconsideration. We find no error

and affirm the orders.

BACKGROUND

Chi Cheng Chang was a former executive director for 

appellant. Shih En Chang was a former employee. Appellant filed 

this action, claiming Chi Cheng Chang and Shih En Chang 

misappropriated money.

Respondents were served with the summons and complaint 

in Taiwan. Respondents filed a motion to quash service of 

summons, arguing they were not properly served and lacked 

sufficient minimum contacts with the California forum. Initially 

the trial court found respondents were properly served but 

continued the proceeding to allow appellant to conduct discovery 

regarding the issue of minimum contacts with the forum. The 

trial court subsequently found sufficient minimum contacts and

denied respondents’ motion to quash. Respondents then filed a 

motion to dismiss or stay the action based on forum non 

conveniens, arguing Taiwan was the proper forum. The trial 

court granted the motion and stayed the action.

Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of the stay; 

however, the hearing on the matter was set after the deadline to 

appeal the stay. Appellant then filed an ex parte application to 

advance the hearing. The application was denied.
3

Appellant then filed a timely notice of appeal from the 

order staying the action and the order denying its ex parte 

application.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

Appellant challenges the order staying the action on the 

ground the trial court abused its discretion by finding 

respondents’ motion based on forum non conveniens was timely. 

Further, it argues the trial court abused its discretion by denying 

appellant’s ex parte application to advance its motion for 

reconsideration.

DISCUSSION

I. There was no abuse of discretion in granting

respondents’ motion to stay

A. Applicable law and standard of review

Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30,

1 subdivision (a)

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.” Section 418.10, subdivision (a)(2) permits a defendant to 

file a motion to stay or dismiss an action on the ground of 

inconvenient forum. “‘A motion for a change of the place of trial 

on the ground that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of 

justice would be promoted by the change is committed to the 

sound discretion of the trial court and its determination will not 

1 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil 

Procedure unless otherwise indicated.
4

be disturbed on appeal unless it clearly appears, as a matter of 

law, that there has been an abuse of such discretion.’” (Rycz v. 

Superior Court (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 824, 837.)

B. Respondents’ forum non conveniens motion was 

timely

Appellant’s attack on the respondents’ motion is based on 

respondents’ delay in filing, resulting in prejudice. While 

appellant contends the respondents’ delay in filing their motion 

was unreasonable, we recognize there is no strict deadline. A 

defendant who has generally appeared in an action may make a 

forum non conveniens motion at any time. (Britton v. Dallas 

Airmotive, Inc. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 127, 133.) The defendants, 

however, cannot unreasonably delay bringing the motion; any 

delay would be relevant to whether the motion should be granted. 

(Id. at p. 135.) Grounds exist to deny such a motion when an 

unreasonable delay causes prejudice to the plaintiff by giving a 

defendant an undeserved advantage. (Martinez v. Ford Motor Co. 

(2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 9, 19.) Such prejudice, for example, occurs 

when a defendant uses judicial discovery procedures to obtain an 

unfair advantage. (Roulier v. Cannondale (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 

1180, 1191.)

Here, there was no deadline for respondents to make a 

forum non conveniens motion after they had made a general 

appearance, that was deemed to have occurred when their motion 

to quash was denied on September 30, 2022. (See State Farm 

General Ins. Co. v. JT’s Frames, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 429, 

440 [holding a defendant is deemed to have generally appeared 

on entry of the order denying his or her motion to quash service 

of summons].) Thus, respondents could file their motion at any 

time, so long as there was not an unreasonable delay.
5

Respondents filed their forum non conveniens motion on 

October 28, 2022, within 30 days of their September 30, 2022 

appearance. This was not an unreasonable delay.

Appellant, however, focuses on the nearly two years that 

passed from the filing of the complaint on December 30, 2020, 

arguing this delay caused prejudice as it caused appellant to 

incur substantial attorney’s fees while opposing respondents’ 

motion to quash service of the summons and complaint. Although 

appellant incurred attorney’s fees in litigating the jurisdictional 

issues arising from service in Taiwan, this alone is insufficient. 

This argument is unavailing because appellant identifies no 

undeserved advantage respondents obtained from the delay.

In examining the reasonableness of respondents’ conduct 

we observe respondents waited to file the forum non conveniens

motion until after the trial court resolved the jurisdictional issues 

raised by their motion to quash service of summons. This was not 

unreasonable as had the motion to quash been granted, it would 

have been unnecessary to bring the forum non conveniens 

motion.

2

Appellant also argues the trial court misconstrued the 

holding in Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452

that it cited in support of its finding that incurring attorney’s fees

2 Appellant seeks support in Martinez v. Ford Motor Co.

(2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 9 because that court found the delay of 18 

months made the motion untimely due to prejudice. However, the 

finding of prejudice was not based on the passage of time, but on 

the defendant conducting discovery that went beyond what was

needed for the forum non conveniens motion. (Id. at p. 21.) Here, 

the record does not show respondents engaged in any such 

discovery or took other prejudicial actions beyond contesting 

service and jurisdiction.
6

is not sufficient to show prejudice. Although Morris summarizes a 

contention that incurring attorney’s fees caused prejudice, it does 

not expressly reject the argument or hold that incurring 

attorney’s fees cannot constitute prejudice. Regardless, the trial 

court did not abuse its discretion when it found respondents’ 

motion timely. The motion had been filed within 30 days of the 

decision on the motion to quash service of summons and 

complaint, and there is no showing the delay conferred an 

undeserved advantage on the respondents. Appellate courts will 

reverse or modify only for prejudicial, as opposed to harmless,

error. (F.P. v. Monier (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1099, 1107-1108.) Since 

respondents’ motion was timely, any error in construing Morris is 

harmless and not grounds to reverse.

II. There was no abuse of discretion in the denial of

appellant’s ex parte application to advance the 

hearing

Though appellant argues the trial court abused its 

discretion by denying appellant’s ex parte application to advance 

the hearing on its motion for reconsideration of the order staying 

the action, appellant does not identify how the trial court abused 

its discretion. “[C]ourts have inherent authority to control their 

own calendars and dockets, and to inquire into their own 

jurisdiction.” (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 

267.) An abuse of discretion is shown when there is no reasonable 

basis for the action. (Denton v. City and County of San Francisco

(2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 779, 791-792.) It is appellant’s burden to 

provide an adequate record to demonstrate reversible error. 

(Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609.) “In the absence 

of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of 

the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate court. ‘If any 
7

matters could have been presented to the court below which 

would have authorized the order complained of, it will be 

presumed that such matters were presented.’” (Bennett v. McCall

(1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 122, 127.) Thus, we must conclusively 

presume the trial court’s findings are supported by the evidence 

when no transcript is provided on appeal. (Nielsen v. Gibson

(2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324.)

A hearing was held on appellant’s ex parte application on 

March 2, 2023. Both sides appeared, argued, and the court issued 

its ruling after argument. Appellant fails to show the trial court 

had no reasonable basis to decline the ex parte application in its 

efforts to control its calendar and dockets. In the absence of a 

contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the 

trial court’s denial will be made. This requires us to conclusively 

presume the trial court’s decision was based on argument and 

facts sufficient to show the proper exercise of its discretion.

Furthermore, our review shows grounds existed to deny the 

ex parte application because appellant’s motion for 

reconsideration was flawed in that appellant argued the trial 

court should not find Taiwan to be an adequate forum due to 

differences in discovery procedures. To obtain reconsideration of a

prior order, an appellant is required to provide a satisfactory 

explanation for the failure to present a new fact, circumstance, or 

law earlier. (Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 

Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200 [holding court has no jurisdiction to 

reconsider a prior order in the absence of a showing of diligence].) 

Appellant did not provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to 

submit evidence of the adequacy of the Taiwanese forum earlier. 

Since it would be an idle act to advance a defective motion, we 
8

can presume this was the basis for the trial court’s denial of the 

ex parte application.

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s order is affirmed. Respondents are

awarded their costs of appeal.

________________________

CHAVEZ, J.

We concur:

____________________________

LUI, P. J.

____________________________

HOFFSTADT, J.