Opinion ID: 3065058
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: improper conversion of dcag’s

Text: MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION INTO A MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS Appellants assert that the District Court improperly converted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction into a de facto dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds because its final order discussed only the adequacy of alternative fora. [10] Appellants mischaracterize the underlying record. Although the final order only discussed the agency relationship and the alternative fora, the District Court considered the other reasonableness factors in its earlier tentative ruling. Because “[a]n appeal from a final judgment draws in question all earlier, non-final orders and rulings which produced the 12012 BAUMAN v. DAIMLERCHRYSLER judgment,” Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1355 (9th Cir. 1984), the District Court did not convert DCAG’s motion into a de facto forum non conveniens motion.