Opinion ID: 1185853
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: relative burdens upon the parties in trying the action in the forum state

Text: Excepting plaintiff herself, witnesses to the accident reside in Nevada. In addition, police and medical information as well as physical evidence repose in Nevada. Thus, trying this action in California places a heavy and expensive burden upon defendant in the presentation of his defense. The majority claims there is little difference in the burden between defending in Nevada or California to a Nebraska resident faced with litigation outside his state. This is untrue. The burden on defendant will be significantly increased if he is required to litigate in California when virtually all of the evidence relevant to his defense is located in Nevada. Further, he may be denied the ability to obtain witnesses necessary to the defense. Finally, the mere fact that a defendant who engages in multi-state activity may reasonably expect litigation in distant forums does not mean he must remain neutral as among the jurisdictions in which he may be required to litigate. Were this otherwise, such defendant would be vulnerable to artful forum shopping. A second consideration in assessing burdens attendant to trying an action in the forum state is the ease of access to the alternative forum. (See Fisher Governor Co. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.2d 222, 225.) But the majority makes no argument that plaintiff would be burdened by having to travel to Nevada to litigate her claim. Such argument would be difficult in light of Nevada's proximity to plaintiff's residence. Consideration of relative burdens upon plaintiff and defendant resulting from trying this action in California as opposed to Nevada thus clearly suggests Nevada as the more appropriate jurisdiction.