Opinion ID: 432088
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Availability of an Alternate Forum.

Text: 58 Appellants recognize that Mexico affords an alternative forum but argue that it is, for practical purposes, unavailable. While the practicality of the alternative forum must be considered, see Hedrick, 715 F.2d at 1359; Raffaele, 707 F.2d at 399; Appellants must carry the burden of proving the unavailability of an alternative forum. I.N.A., 649 F.2d at 1273. Appellants allude to a severe maximum limit on wrongful death recoveries, see Hurtado v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 574, 578-79, 114 Cal.Rptr. 106, 108, 522 P.2d 666, 668 (1974), but offer no proof of applicable Mexican law to substantiate their allegation. Because appellants fail to carry their burden of proof, we cannot conclude that they are left without an alternative forum. 59 After considering all the relevant factors, we conclude that, on balance, it would be reasonable for a California court to exercise jurisdiction over Mexico and thus, personal jurisdiction is consistent with due process requirements. 60 REVERSED AND REMANDED.