Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1632739.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 22:46:36+00:00

Document:
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents.
Covington & Burling, Donald W. Brown, Michael S. Greenberg, Jeffrey M. Davidson; Munger, Tolles & Olson and Cary B. Lerman, for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Cozen O'Connor, Charles E. Wheeler, Matthew Walsh, Amanda M. Lorenz; Carroll, McNulty & Kull, Christopher R. Carroll and Heather E. Simpson, for Defendants and Respondents TIG Insurance Company, The North River Insurance Company and U.S. Fire Insurance Company. Selman Breitman, Sheryl W. Leichenger and Elisabeth M. D'Agostino, for Defendant and Respondent American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company. Tressler, Michaela L. Sozio, Elizabeth L. Musser; White & Williams, Michael O. Kassak and Edward M. Koch, for Defendants and Respondents Federal Insurance Company, Vigilant Insurance Company and Great Northern Insurance Company. The Aguilera Law Group, A. Eric Aguilera; Hermes, Netburn, O'Connor & Spearing, Kevin J. O'Connor, Peter C. Netburn and Matthew C. Kalin, for Defendants and Respondents Discovery Property & Casualty Insurance Company, St. Paul Protective Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty & Surety Company, Travelers Indemnity Company and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America. Troutman Sanders, Terrence R. McInnis and William D. Burger, Jr., for Defendant and Respondent XL Insurance America, Inc. Clyde & Co Us, David A. Gabianelli, Andrew G. Wanger, Daren S. McNally and Barbara M. Almeida, for Defendants and Respondents, Ace American Ins. Co., Century Indemnity Ins. Co., Illinois Union Ins. Co. and Westchester Fire Ins. Co. Gordon & Rees, Peter Schwartz and Gary Collis, for Defendant and Respondent Alterra America Insurance Company. Arnold & Porter, Brian K. Condon, Jake R. Miller; Jackson & Campbell, Warren Lutz, Timothy R. Dingilian and Paul D. Smolinsky, for Defendants and Respondents Chartis Property Casualty Company, Chartis Specialty Insurance Company, Illinois National Insurance Company and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pitssburgh, Pa. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, William K. Enger and James J. Pulliam, for Defendant and Respondent Guarantee Insurance Company.
The National Football League has returned to Los Angeles, but not, as many Angelenos hope, bearing the gift of a new home team. The league administration and its intellectual property marketing arm have been sued in multiple states by dozens of former players alleging lifelong brain damage from on-field injuries dating back to the 1950's. In this case the plaintiffs, National Football League and NFL Properties LLC, seek a Los Angeles Superior Court declaratory relief judgment regarding the coverage duties of 32 insurance carriers pursuant to some 187 commercial liability policies that were issued over a 50–60 year period. All the same entities are parties to parallel coverage actions filed by some of the insurers in New York state courts at approximately the same time as the California case.
The insurer defendants sought a dismissal or stay of the California case on a theory of forum non conveniens. Following extensive briefing and a hearing, the California trial court ordered the California proceeding stayed pending the outcome of the New York actions. The plaintiffs appeal, contending the trial court misapprehended the applicable legal test, and abused its discretion in any event. We affirm and clarify the standards to be applied by a trial court which intends to stay rather than dismiss a California case on grounds of forum non conveniens. We also hold the plaintiffs, whose principal places of business are in New York City, are not California residents in the inconvenient forum context, even though three teams reside in California. Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's analysis and conclusion that the California action should be stayed.
Plaintiff National Football League (“NFL”), is an unincorporated association headquartered in New York City since 1960 and comprised of 32 member “clubs” based in various states throughout the country. Only two states, California and Florida, are home to three teams. New York is home to only the Buffalo Bills; the “New York” Giants and “New York” Jets are located in northern New Jersey, a short distance from New York City.1 Over the past 50 years, more NFL regular season games have been played in California than in any other state. The annual Super Bowl and Pro Bowl games have been played in California 34 times, most often in Los Angeles County.
NFL's largest offices are in New York, where the various NFL entities conduct the majority of their business.3 Anastasia Danias, Vice–President of Legal Affairs for NFL, works in New York, as do other NFL executives. NFL entities regularly file suit in New York state and federal courts, including insurance coverage actions against insurers located in eastern states other than New York.
Thirty-two insurers are named as defendants in the instant coverage case. NFL alleges those companies issued commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies providing primary and excess coverage over a roughly 45–year period from the late 1960's to 2012. Decades of policies are implicated in the underlying tort litigation because CGL policies generally cover only occurrences within the policy period and the tort plaintiffs allege injuries dating back to the 1950's. Plaintiffs NFL and NFL Properties separately purchased and maintained their own insurance programs over the years involved here up until 2000, when they fully integrated their programs.
Thus far, the NFL plaintiffs have identified at least 187 policies issued to one or both of them by the 32 defendants covering time periods between March 1968 and August 2012. The vast majority were brokered and delivered to NFL in New York City. The policies provide coverage in layers: a first-recourse “primary” layer and “umbrella” or “excess” layers of coverage. Fifty-two of the policies, issued by 12 of the insurer defendants, are primary policies, which include a duty to defend against lawsuits potentially covered by the policy. Prior to 1977, NFL relied primarily on California-based insurance brokers and offices. It is expected that some or all policies from that era, which are yet to be located, were issued through California brokers and/or to California-based NFL entities.
All the defendants are licensed and/or doing business in both California and New York. With one exception, the insurers currently have their principal places of business east of the Mississippi River, primarily in the northeast and mid-Atlantic states. The majority are located within 250 miles of New York City. Only Fireman's Fund has a principal business location in California, in the city of Novato. Three insurers have their principal place of business in New York. Fourteen defendants have their principal place of business in either Connecticut or New Jersey, which along with New York are collectively referred to as the “Tri–State Area.” Four insurers have their principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Four more are located in Illinois, and one each are in Florida, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Virginia, and Minnesota. Thirty of the 32 insurer defendants are incorporated in east coast states, Illinois or Indiana.
Chartis is the only primary carrier with a principal place of business in New York. NFL alleges that Chartis issued 12 policies under which NFL is entitled to coverage. Eleven policies were negotiated primarily between underwriters located in New York and NFL's New York broker, and the policies were delivered to NFL in New York. One Chartis policy was negotiated primarily between underwriters located in both Illinois and New York and an NFL broker in Indiana. NFL tendered its claims for coverage under the Chartis policies from its New York offices, and Chartis is handling those claims in New York, where documents concerning the claims are located.
TIG issued more duty-to-defend policies than any other insurer. Although TIG is incorporated in California and maintained its principal business location here at the time most of its NFL policies were written, the TIG policies were issued to NFL in New York through a New York-based broker. All relevant TIG documents and personnel are located in Manchester, New Hampshire. TIG's two affiliates have their principal places of business in New Jersey, where all their relevant documents and witnesses are located.
The Travelers policies were negotiated, issued, or issued for delivery to NFL in New York, often through New York brokers. Travelers is handling NFL's claims in New York City.
ACE is headquartered in Philadelphia. All 28 of its primary and secondary policies allegedly issued to NFL since 1968 were brokered, issued, and delivered to NFL in New York. Although ACE is handling NFL's claims partly in California, representatives from New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania are also involved.
The Chubb policies were delivered to NFL in New York, and most of the brokers for those policies are located in New York. One Chubb person responsible for NFL claims handling is located in California; several others are located in Texas and New Jersey.
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company and New England Reinsurance Corporation issued seven policies to NFL. Six policies for which information is available, were issued in New York, five through a New York-based broker. NFL's claims under these policies have been handled by representatives in Connecticut working with NFL personnel in New York.
XL Insurance America issued six policies, and XL Select Insurance Company issued one. All seven were brokered, underwritten, and delivered in New York. All claims by NFL under these policies are being handled in Pennsylvania.
Fireman's Fund or an affiliate issued four policies to NFL in New York. Three policies were issued through a New York-based broker and one primary policy was issued through a California-based broker that is now located in Illinois. This insurer is handling NFL's claims through employees in California and South Carolina, who have communicated with NFL's New York personnel.
Through Harbor Insurance Company and Niagara Fire Insurance Company, Continental Insurance Company issued four policies to NFL. Three were negotiated between New York underwriters and brokers; one involved a New York underwriter and a broker in California. That California broker has since been acquired by a Chicago-based brokerage. NFL's claims under these policies are being handled in New Jersey.
Allstate Insurance Company is the successor in interest to Northbrook Excess & Surplus Insurance Company, formerly Northbrook Insurance Company. All the policies under which Allstate may be liable were issued to NFL in New York through a New York broker. All claims handling with respect to these policies is taking place in Illinois.
Alterra issued one policy to NFL through a New York broker; it is handling NFL's claims in New York and Virginia.
American Re issued one policy to NFL through a California broker that has since been acquired by a Chicago-based brokerage. All claims handling is taking place in New Jersey.
American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, Arrowood, Guarantee Insurance Company and OneBeacon Insurance Company each issued one policy to NFL in New York and through a New York broker in most cases. These carriers are handling NFL's claims in states other than California, including Minnesota, Georgia and Florida.
As set forth in appellants' appendix, in July 2011, 73 former players sued the NFL and NFL Properties, along with helmet-maker Riddell in Los Angeles Superior Court (the “Maxwell ” case). The players alleged concussions and other injuries sustained during their NFL careers had resulted in brain and other neurological damage, and that, at its highest management levels, NFL negligently failed to protect players against such long-term injuries. Maxwell was the first such lawsuit filed against NFL. In August 2011, two similar actions were filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of 63 players (“Pear ” and “Barnes ”). Also in August 2011, seven former players filed a putative class action against NFL in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (“Easterling ”). Maxwell, Pear, Barnes and Easterling were the vanguard of what has become a large number of lawsuits filed on behalf of former players in California and at least eight other states throughout the country (“underlying tort litigation”). Some cases allege fraud and conspiracy in addition to negligence.
In January 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the Maxwell, Pear, and Barnes actions transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for MDL pretrial proceedings. All the players allege in the concussion MDL that “all NFL policies and decisions relevant to the conduct alleged herein occurred primarily in the NFL corporate offices in New York.” An amended MDL complaint focuses on the claim that NFL's senior management knew the risk of brain injury to players, but failed to disclose it. Those cases will be returned to their original venues if not settled before trial.
As of November 2012, players had filed more than 174 lawsuits against the NFL itself, many of which also named NFL Properties as a defendant. Most (154) were filed in states other than California. More than 3,700 former players and more than 2,000 spouses are plaintiffs in those cases. Approximately 12 percent of the former players allege California residence; approximately 1.5 percent alleges New York residence. Most of these cases have been, or will be, consolidated in the MDL in Pennsylvania.
At the time the trial court stayed NFL's California action, the MDL proceedings were in the initial pleading stage, with discovery stayed and motions to dismiss pending and awaiting oral argument. If the underlying tort litigation is not dismissed on pretrial motions, the individual lawsuits will be returned for trial to the jurisdictions (including California) in which they were initially filed.
The underlying tort claims are being handled at NFL's New York headquarters and a New York broker, Marsh USA, Inc. Correspondence regarding the coverage issues has been directed, at NFL's request, to its vice-president of legal affairs at NFL's Park Avenue headquarters.
On August 13, 2012, Alterra America Insurance Company filed suit against NFL in the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan. There Alterra alleges that former players sued NFL alleging neurological injuries sustained while playing football. According to Alterra, NFL tendered some of these lawsuits for defense and indemnity and Alterra declined coverage. Alterra seeks a declaration that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify NFL.
Two days after Alterra filed in New York, NFL instituted this action in Los Angeles Superior Court against Alterra and 31 other insurance companies. The operative complaint alleges breach of contract against certain primary insurance carriers and three declaratory relief claims against all insurers. NFL claims that between 1968 and 2012 the insurers issued 187 primary and umbrella or excess insurance policies to NFL. According to NFL, former football players and their spouses filed more than 140 lawsuits alleging concussions and other football injuries resulting in long-term brain damage. NFL claims that 12 insurers have breached their duty to defend under 52 primary policies. As to all 32 insurers, NFL seeks a declaration that the insurers must indemnify NFL under all policies for any damages they must pay to claimants in the underlying brain injury suits.
NFL also seeks a declaration regarding the respective rights and duties of NFL and various unnamed “Doe” insurers under policies issued to Riddell, Inc., which manufactures football helmets. NFL alleges that the Riddell policies, which are unrelated to the policies involved in the instant lawsuit, may provide coverage to NFL as additional insureds. Earlier, Riddell had filed against its own insurers in Los Angeles Superior Court, regarding those insurers' duty to defend and indemnify Riddell in the underlying brain injury suits.
On August 21, 2012, Discover Property & Casualty Company and five affiliated companies (collectively, Travelers), all of which are defendants in the present NFL lawsuit, filed a new action in the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan. Travelers seeks declaratory relief as to its duty to defend and indemnify NFL in the brain injury cases pursuant to policies issued from the 1960's to 2012. Travelers also seeks a declaration that the other NFL insurers are not entitled to contribution from Travelers with respect to any amounts those insurers pay to defend or indemnify NFL. All parties in the present NFL action are parties to Travelers' New York action. The Travelers case was consolidated with the Alterra action on September 19, 2012. No insurers involved in the New York actions have challenged personal jurisdiction or claimed the issues are not justiciable.
On August 22, 2012, Alterra filed an amended complaint in its New York action, naming as defendants all but two of the insurers who are defendants in NFL's California action. Alterra repeats the allegations from its original complaint and claims that the insurer defendants issued policies to NFL.
On August 23, 2012, TIG Insurance Company and two affiliates, all of which are defendants in the NFL's California action, filed an answer, counterclaim, cross-claims and a third party complaint in the Alterra action. TIG asserts cross-claims against NFL and all the other insurers seeking declaratory relief as to the duties to defend and indemnify. It also asserts a third party claim for declaratory relief against the two carriers that Alterra did not include in its amended complaint. As a result, all parties in the NFL's California action are parties in Alterra's New York action.
The Chartis Insurers answered in the Alterra and Travelers New York actions on September 6, 2012, and asserted cross-claims against NFL for declaratory relief. On September 12, 2012, ACE American Insurance Company and four affiliates (collectively “ACE”), and Federal Insurance Company and two affiliates (collectively, Chubb), answered in the Alterra and Travelers actions and asserted cross-claims against NFL.
Shortly after filing the instant action, NFL lodged a notice of related case under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300. NFL asserted this case is related to the Ridell insurance coverage action, given that both arose out of the underlying players' claims. Insurer defendants immediately filed oppositions. On September 17, 2012, NFL filed a motion to relate its case to the Riddell action. The following week, the judge to whom the Riddell action had been assigned heard argument and granted NFL's motion. On October 3, 2012, after Travelers filed a peremptory challenge pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6, both this case and Riddell were reassigned to Judge John Shepard Wiley.
In September 2012, defendants Chartis, TIG, Travelers, ACE, Chubb and Fireman's Fund filed separate motions to dismiss or stay NFL's action on forum non conveniens grounds. All but one of the other insurer defendants joined in the motions. NFL filed a consolidated opposition and the insurers filed replies and joinders. On November 28, 2012, the trial court held its hearing on the motions to dismiss or stay this action. At the beginning of the hearing the court furnished the parties with a five-page tentative ruling granting the motions and staying the action. During the hearing, the trial court heard extensive argument by NFL regarding the insurers' motions. Later that day, the trial court issued a written decision (detailed below) granting the motions and imposing a stay of this action, pending the outcome of the parallel New York matters. The trial court set a review hearing in December 2013, and invited the parties to calendar the matter at any time if necessary.
On December 6, 2012, NFL appealed the trial court's orders.
In pertinent part, the trial court's written explanation of its balancing of the interests for and against retaining the action in California reads as follows.
Had the suitability of an alternate forum been disputed in the present case, the trial court's ruling on that point would have been subject to either a de novo or substantial evidence review on appeal. (Investors Equity Life Holding Co. v. Schmidt (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1519, 1528 (Investors Equity ) [de novo standard]; Guimei,supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 696 [substantial evidence standard].) However, there is no dispute here that New York is a suitable alternate forum.
Although NFL agrees that abuse of discretion is the standard on appellate review of a trial court's weighing and balancing of private and public interests in the forum non conveniens context, it argues the trial court erred to NFL's detriment in several respects regarding the moving party defendants' burden of proof at the trial court level. NFL contends it is a California resident for purposes of the forum non conveniens analysis, because, as an unincorporated association of member football clubs, it resides wherever its members are located. In the alternative, NFL argues that, regardless of residency, the trial court erred in failing to strongly presume in favor of plaintiff's choice of forum. NFL further faults the trial court for not requiring defendants prove California is a seriously inconvenient forum. Finally, NFL contends the court below erroneously gave dispositive deference to defendant insurers' New York lawsuits and erroneously shifted the burden of proof to plaintiffs.
No California case has decided the issue of residency of an unincorporated association in the inconvenient forum context. We hold that a multi-state unincorporated association is not necessarily entitled to a strong presumption of the convenience of a California forum simply because some of its members reside here. Rather, in its forum non conveniens analysis, a trial court must evaluate the nature of the plaintiff's organization and activities, including any principal place of business aside from those of its members, as part of the overall duty of determining the relationship of the case and parties to the forum.
The trial court properly recognized that NFL operates in New York independently of its teams, and properly considered the effect of that practical reality in its balancing of the private and public interest factors. Those factors focus on practical concerns such as access to witnesses and evidence, the costs of litigation, and the interests of California and its citizens in deciding the dispute. When weighing such concerns, the trial court was legally correct and well within the bounds of reason in denying NFL the status of a full-fledged California resident.
On appeal, the insurers rely heavily on the stay/dismissal distinction in defending the trial court's burden of proof calculus. Defendants also argue that Ford is an aberrant decision which the trial court properly ignored. NFL counters with the contention that Century was wrongly decided as to the burden of proof issue. We hold that the trial court committed no error.
It cannot be ignored that the California inconvenient forum doctrine is now embedded in statute. (Taschen,supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at p. 687.) One of the purposes of the enactment of section 410.30 was to give “less weight to the plaintiff's domicile or residence.” (Delfosse v. C.A.C.I., Inc.-Federal (1990) 218 Ca1.App.3d 683, 688, fn 4 (Delfosse ).) Yet, our appellate courts have given significant weight to the Judicial Council comment and the Restatement in applying the doctrine. (See Stangvik,supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 752–753; Hahn v. Diaz–Barba,supra, 194 Ca1.App.4th at p. 1186, fn. 5; Delfosse,supra, 218 Ca1.App.3d at p. 689.) It follows that NFL correctly points out that the strong presumption in favor of plaintiff's choice of forum and the seriously inconvenient burden of proof are longstanding principles within the forum conveniens doctrine. We turn to post-codification cases to determine whether those standards were properly distinguished by the trial court in the present case.
Corrigan was followed in a case involving an American corporation, Celotex Corp. v. American Ins. Co. (1987) 199 Cal.App.3d 678. There the court of appeal affirmed a stay in an asbestos coverage dispute between plaintiff, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Florida, and two insurance carriers who principally did business in California. Related actions were pending in federal district courts in Ohio and Florida. (Id. at pp. 680–681.) After noting the importance ascribed to plaintiff's choice of forum in the above-mentioned Judicial Council comment to section 410.30, which the court characterized as “substantial deference,” the court concluded “the deference accorded a nonresident plaintiff is less than that accorded a California resident,” citing Corrigan,supra, 182 Cal.App.3d at page 683.
These dueling lines of cases set the stage for the California Supreme Court's 1991 decision in Stangvik,supra, 54 Cal.3d 744. We look to it for guidance even though it involved noncitizen plaintiffs, as distinct from the nonresident American plaintiffs in the instant case.
As noted the Stangvik opinion states quite clearly that a plaintiff from a foreign country is not entitled to a strong presumption of the correctness of its choice of forum. As the present parties point out, the opinion contains dictum to the effect that the strong presumption should be limited to California residents, but expressly declines to reach the issue. (Stangvik, supra,54 Ca.3d at p. 755, fn. 7.) Thus, the issue of whether a plaintiff who is a nonresident citizen of the United States is entitled to a “strong presumption” or “substantial deference” remained open for the competing decisions relied on by the parties in the present case.
We thus conclude from the teachings of Archibald and Stangvik, as interpreted by the most well-reasoned decisions of our court of appeal colleagues, that a resident of one of our sister states who files suit in California is entitled to due deference under the circumstances presented, not a strong presumption, in favor of its choice of forum. That deference is to be weighed and balanced by the trial court along with all the other pertinent factors, including the defendant's residence or principal place of business, and has no direct bearing on the moving defendant's burden of proof. We therefore disagree with the contrary language in cases such as Ford, which assert that all U.S. citizen plaintiffs' choices of forum are entitled to great weight. Consequently we reject NFL's contention that the trial court erred in failing to strongly presume in favor of NFL's choice of a California forum. Further, the trial court properly considered NFL's contacts with California as one of the Stangvik factors, rather than an overarching presumption affecting the burden of proof.
As the passage just quoted reveals, the Ford court cited only page 1561 of the Northrup opinion for the proposition that the “seriously inconvenient” burden arises out of the “strong presumption of appropriateness attending plaintiff's choice of forum.” Northrup, decided a year before Stangvik, involved a major California corporation seeking declaratory relief as to its primary liability carrier's duty to cover a hazardous chemical spill which had taken place in Massachusetts. (Northrup,supra, 220 Cal.App.3d at p. 1557.) Not surprisingly, the court of appeal reversed the trial court's order dismissing the California plaintiff's California action. (Ibid.) However, one searches the Northrup opinion in vain for the words “seriously inconvenient.” The court does engage in a lengthy discussion of whether the enactment of section 410.30, and a later amendment, changed the principle that a California resident's choice of a California forum is entitled to a strong presumption of correctness. (Id. at pp. 1559–1562.) But nowhere does the Northrup court make the leap from that maxim to the conclusion that a moving party must show the “serious inconvenience” of litigating in California.
We note the conspicuous absence of a line of California cases culminating in the “serious inconvenience” standard pronounced by the court in Ford. Although the verbiage appears in the comment generated by the Judicial Council when section 410.30 was enacted, it has not appeared in a California Supreme Court opinion. Both Ford and Northrop reversed trial court dismissal orders which were adverse to long-time California corporate plaintiffs seeking insurance coverage determinations. By contrast, Taschen, Morris and Hansen, the three “Ford progeny” cases summarized above, involved stay orders rather than dismissals. However, all three of those cases involved plaintiffs with tenuous connections to California and in each case the court of appeal had no trouble upholding the trial court's stay order without needing to closely examine the genesis or validity of Ford's articulation of the burden of proof.
We conclude that the phraseology “seriously inconvenient” as used in the Judicial Council Comment was intended to describe the quantum of evidence needed to justify a dismissal in the face of the strong presumption favoring a resident plaintiff's choice to sue in its home-state court system. Ford was not such a case, although the court there understandably gave weight to the plaintiff's past and present contacts with California, and the fact the underlying dispute revolved around the need to clean up polluted California land, one parcel of which was still owned by plaintiff Ford Motor Company. As we have noted, the present case does not involve a California-resident plaintiff, and there is no California land involved in the underlying dispute.14 Here the trial court issued only a stay order, and plaintiffs are not California residents. Accordingly, the trial court properly ruled that Ford and its progeny were not controlling, and properly turned for guidance to more closely analogous cases, such as Century,supra, 58 Cal.App.4th 408, discussed on a related point earlier in this opinion.
The trial court's statement of decision included the following: “California is not a convenient home for this case, given that this case duplicates an older litigation in the NFL's home state of New York.” It also referred to the California action as “a new and redundant case about the same insurance coverage dispute already being litigated in New York.” Seizing on these findings, NFL contends the trial court “apparently” found the fact the New York case was “first-filed” to be a “dispositive” factor in the analysis. Such a finding, argues NFL, erroneously shifted the burden of proof to plaintiff and is otherwise flawed.
We need not explore the disputes about whether a “first-filed” rule exists or the likely fate of the New York action, because we disagree with the premise that the court gave any improper weight to the existence or filing date of the New York case. The language quoted by NFL appears in the introductory section of the statement of decision, shortly before the trial court briefly addressed the threshold issue of whether New York is an adequate forum. We read the trial court's decision to have considered the existence of the New York case primarily as a strong indicator that such an alternative forum exists. The court thereafter proceeded to address the required balancing of private and public interests, as well as NFL's various arguments. We reject the notion that the trial court gave dispositive deference to the New York litigation as unsupported by the record.
Notwithstanding the trial court's express finding that the “moving parties have met their burden” of proof, NFL contends the trial court erred in “functionally” requiring NFL to prove the inconvenience of the New York forum. NFL argues this issue circumstantially, citing no direct evidence in the record. We reject NFL's claim of an improper burden shift.
NFL's argument relies heavily on its contentions that defendants' burden of proof was to show the serious inconvenience of the California forum and overcome a strong presumption in favor of plaintiff's choice of forum. We have already concluded that these arguments are flawed.
NFL attacks the trial court's exercise of its discretion in four ways. First, it argues the trial court “skewed” several factors by incorrectly concluding they weigh against the Los Angeles venue, when in fact they favor it or are neutral. Second, NFL contends the trial court ignored significant private and public factors that support retaining jurisdiction. Third, the trial court allegedly gave undue emphasis to the burden on California's court system and taxpayers. Finally, NFL urges that California has a substantial interest in the coverage action. We will address each of these arguments while emphasizing that we reject NFL's implicit invitation to engage in a de novo review.
The factors allegedly “skewed” by the trial court include the past California residency of the predecessor to plaintiff NFL Properties, the paucity of defendants who principally do business in New York, the relative abilities of the New York and Los Angeles courts to handle complex commercial matters, the absence of a California forum selection clause in the subject policies, and the difficulties of bringing evidence and witnesses to the ultimate forum. In each of these areas, NFL argues the trial court gave undue weight to the pro-New York arguments while neglecting or miscontruing the degree to which the issue favors a California forum. In other words, NFL asks us to reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. This we cannot do. (Stangvik,supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751.) Nor do we attach significance to the trial court's failure to mention any particular part of the evidence. Where the record is silent we draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the trial court's ruling, because that court had no duty to fully express the reasons for its ruling. (Hahn v. Diaz–Barba,supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1187–1188.) Given the thoroughness of the briefing, argument and the court's written ruling, we have no doubt the court was mindful of all aspects of the record.
The first factor favoring a California forum allegedly ignored by the trial court is the fact that two defendants, Fireman's Fund and TIG, are California residents and they issued approximately half of the primary policies involved in the present case.
Fireman's Fund, which allegedly refused to defend the underlying tort litigation despite being a primary insurer, is a California corporation with its principal place of business here. However, it remains only one of 32 defendant insurers whose interests must be taken into account. Further, because of the inescapable fact that NFL does business in New York, that is where any legal injury has occurred.
TIG, a California corporation, allegedly issued 10 primary policies, more than any other defendant. Some were issued when TIG's principal place of business was in California. NFL notes that either the state of incorporation or primary business location of a corporate defendant is presumptively a convenient forum. (Stangvik,supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 755.) However, TIG's current principal place of business is in New Hampshire, while its affiliates' headquarters are in New Jersey. Relevant witnesses and documents are in those locations. California's interest in determining coverage for New York entities simply because a carrier is incorporated here is minimal at best.
The second factor NFL contends was erroneously ignored is the contacts, past and present, between plaintiffs and the state of California. These include: the fact that NFLP, the predecessor of NFL Properties, was a California corporation during its 38–year existence, and principally did business and bought insurance in Los Angeles between 1963 and 1970; and the multiple teams that have made California home, resulting in extensive community ties and, we are told, more NFL games having been played here over the last 50 years than any other state. NFL argues these long-term contacts are relevant in a case where the underlying torts and resulting coverage issues date back nearly 50 years. The trial court did not ignore these issues. Rather, it correctly pointed out that the issue at hand, convenience, depends on current circumstances, unlike a “minimum contacts” jurisdictional issue. NFL Properties and its predecessor have done business principally in New York for over 40 years. California's interest in a former resident's entitlement to coverage for tort claims filed nationwide, mostly by non-California residents, is minimal.
NFL's third allegedly ignored factor, policies that were issued or brokered in California in the 1970's, along with possible 1960's California policies yet to be located, is unpersuasive. Only a handful of the 187 known policies were brokered in California, and those brokers have since merged with Chicago agencies. Most of the policies were placed by New York brokers, who cannot easily be compelled to appear for trial in California. Again, California's interest in litigating policies issued to a former resident corporation decades ago pales in comparison to New York's interest in resolving a case where the vast majority of policies were issued outside California through New York brokers to current New York residents. Thus, the trial court understandably gave short shrift to past contacts with California, as compared to the current state of affairs.
NFL next claims that because the first few of the underlying tort cases were filed in California, the first alleged coverage breaches took place here. Those cases, involving 12 percent of the 3,700 players who have sued, could eventually be returned for trial in a California federal court. The brain injury suits were predominantly filed outside of California, which is where most defense resources will be needed. And, again, any alleged breach of the duty to defend has injured NFL where it lives, in New York.
The sixth allegedly undervalued factor raised by NFL is Los Angeles Superior Court's ruling “relating” the instant case to the Riddell coverage action, which was filed four months before NFL's case and remains pending in Los Angeles. NFL points out the two cases arise from the same underlying tort claims, and involve some of the same insurer defendants, as well as issues relating to NFL being an additional insured on policies issued to Riddell. This issue was not ignored by the trial court, which expressly found that the, “Riddell case does not make California a convenient location for [this case].” While it is arguable that certain efficiencies would occur should the two cases remain in the same Los Angeles courtroom, the cases involve coverage for different types of claims under different insurance policies, potentially governed by the laws of different states. NFL's coverage for products liability under Riddell's policies is not the same issue as its coverage under its own policies for other tort claims. Consequently, we disagree with NFL's contention that separating the two cases might lead to inconsistent results.
In sum, the above-discussed factors were expressly or impliedly considered by the trial court in its balancing process. They were not, as argued by NFL, undervalued or ignored. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's conclusion that, considered singly or in combination, they did not mandate a denial of the defense motions.
NFL notes cautionary language in Stangvik regarding avoiding undue emphasis on any single factor in the balancing analysis (Stangvik,supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 753), and not using a forum non conveniens ruling to control one's docket (id. at p. 758). It argues the trial court abused its discretion by “giving the concern for court congestion and taxpayer burden ․ singular emphasis and great weight, without giving any counterweight to other significant factors favoring retaining jurisdiction․” This is a puzzling claim, given that consideration of public interest factors is one of the mandated categories a trial court must evaluate in response to an inconvenient forum motion. In Stangvik our Supreme Court stated, “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, citingPiper, supra, 454 U.S. at pp. 259–261.) Those are precisely the factors considered by the trial court in the present case. We find NFL's speculative claim that the court gave undue weight to them unpersuasive, and beyond the scope of our abuse of discretion review.
Seizing on the trial court's comment in its written ruling that “nothing recommends California,” NFL argues the trial court abused its discretion by giving no weight whatsoever to the factors discussed above in section D2 of this opinion. We have already examined those factors and explained why we are unpersuaded by the NFL's claims that they demonstrate an abuse of discretion. We review the trial court's action, not its precise reasoning, and especially not a few of its words taken out of context. (Cal–State Business Products & Services, Inc. v. Ricoh (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1666, 1676.) There was no abuse of the trial court's wide discretion to assign appropriate weight to the relevant factors.
The trial court applied the correct standards in conducting the proceedings below. No strong presumption in favor of the NFL plaintiffs' choice of forum applied because plaintiffs are not California residents for purposes of a forum non conveniens analysis. The burden of proof on the defendant insurers, as the moving parties on the motion, did not include establishing California is a seriously inconvenient forum because such proof is not required to justify a stay of the California proceedings, as contrasted with a dismissal. The trial court's decision to stay the proceedings after weighing and balancing the relevant factors was well within its allowable discretion.
The trial court orders staying the proceedings below pending the outcome of the parallel New York actions are affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to defendants.
1. The California teams are the San Francisco 49ers, Oakland Raiders and San Diego Chargers. From 1946 to 1979 a fourth club, the Rams, made its home in Los Angeles; the Rams moved to Anaheim in 1980 and to St. Louis in 1995. The Chargers were located in Los Angeles for their inaugural season (1960), then moved to San Diego. The Raiders played their home games in Los Angeles from 1982 to 1994 before returning to Oakland.
2. NFL Properties' parent company, not a party to this lawsuit, has a substantial presence in California in that two of its units, NFL Network and NFL.com, have headquarters in Los Angeles County. The NFL Network headquarters houses a staff of more than 300 people, including a number of NFL employees and an NFL executive vice-president, making it the largest NFL-related entity office outside New York.
3. Unless otherwise noted, all subsequent references to “NFL” as a party should be read to include both plaintiffs.
4. The Collective Bargaining Agreement provides that it shall be construed, interpreted and governed by New York law.
9. Plaintiff NFL Properties is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York City. It was not registered to do business in California at the time this lawsuit was filed.
11. The Restatement Second at section 84, sets forth the forum non conveniens doctrine as follows: “A state will not exercise jurisdiction if it is a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action provided that a more appropriate forum is available to the plaintiff.” (Rest.2d Conf. of Laws, § 84).
12. As noted above, Ford also cites to Northrup Corp. v. American Motorists Ins. Co. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1553 (Northrup ) a pre-Stangvik court of appeal decision involving a resident California corporation as plaintiff. Ford's reliance on Northrup is discussed further below, in connection with the issue of whether the moving party's burden includes a showing that the California forum is “seriously inconvenient.” As to the issue under discussion here, however, Northrup is not helpful to NFL because, unlike the plaintiff in Northrup, NFL does not reside in California.
15. The California Supreme Court has never elaborated on its statement in Stangvik that “defendant, as the moving party, bears the burden of proof.” (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751.) Courts of appeal have concluded from the “analytical framework set forth in Stangvik ” that no substantial evidentiary showing, beyond the existence of an alternate forum, is required. (Campbell,supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 1542; [“Stangvik did not require an extensive evidentiary showing.”]; see Morris,supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at p. 1462 [no particularized affidavits required].) We agree. The moving party burden on a forum non conveniens motion appears to consist of establishing a suitable alternate forum and providing the trial court with sufficient facts to carry out its weighing and balancing analysis. Any additional requirements would appear to conflict with the clear mandate that the analysis is entrusted to the trial court's discretion.
O'NEILL, J.* FN* Judge of the Ventura County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
We concur: TURNER, P.J. KRIEGLER, J.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 84
 v.