Court Opinion

ID: 9905168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 21:05:31.051716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:13.074489
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/28/23 Pontikis v. Atieva, Inc. CA1/2

                NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                                 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                             DIVISION TWO

 STEFANOS PONTIKIS,
          Plaintiff and Appellant,
                                                               A167580
 v.
 ATIEVA, INC., et al.,                                         (Alameda County
                                                               Super. Ct. No. RG21102685)
          Defendants and Respondents.

         Stefanos Pontikis appeals from an order maintaining a stay of
proceedings in this case on the ground of forum non conveniens, entered on
remand after a prior appeal in which we directed the trial court to consider a
limited issue concerning the suitability of Arizona as an alternative forum for
this dispute. (See Pontikis v. Atieva, Inc. (Dec. 28, 2022, No. A164444)
[nonpub. opn.] 2022 Cal.App.Unpub. LEXIS 7921 (Pontikis I).)
        We will reject Pontikis’ arguments and affirm the order staying this
case.

                                                        1
                                BACKGROUND
      We incorporate by reference the factual and procedural background
described in Pontikis’ prior appeal and only state the facts necessary to
dispose of this one.
      Potonkis filed this employment lawsuit in California against his former
employer and various affiliated entities (collectively Atieva), based
exclusively on events that took place in Arizona which is where Pontikis
worked and lived at the time of the events. (Pontikis I, supra, at **1–3.)
Atieva filed a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, and the trial
court ruled that California is not a convenient forum and that Arizona is an
available and suitable forum. The trial court declined to dismiss the case but
instead stayed it to permit Pontikis to file suit in Arizona. (Id. at **1, 3.)
      Pontikis appealed, arguing he is barred by the statute of limitations
from bringing suit in Arizona and therefore Arizonia is not an available
forum as a matter of law. (Pontikis I, supra, at *1.)
      We summarized the applicable law: “Section 410.30, subdivision (a),
permits a trial court to ‘stay or dismiss [an] action in whole or in part on any
conditions that may be just’ when the court finds that ‘in the interest of
substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state.’
In determining whether to grant a motion to dismiss or stay on grounds of
forum non conveniens, the trial court conducts a two-step analysis. First, it
determines whether the alternate forum proposed is a “ ‘suitable’ place for
trial.” [Citation.] ‘A forum is suitable if there is jurisdiction and no statute of
limitations bar to hearing the case on the merits.’ [Citations.] If, as is
argued here by Pontikis, the alternative forum is no longer available because
the limitations period has expired, ‘the general rule is that . . . a motion to
dismiss based upon an inconvenient forum argument shall not be granted.’ ”

                                         2
(Pontikis I, supra, at *5.) “If the trial court determines that an alternative
forum is suitable for trial, ‘the next step is to consider the private interests of
the litigants and the interests of the public in retaining the action for trial in
California,’ ” which is a discretionary determination that turns on the
application of a number of factors but was not at issue because Pontikis
claimed no error concerning the discretionary second step. (Pontikis I, supra,
at **4, 5.)
      We concluded it was unclear from the record whether the Arizona
statute of limitations had expired and thus whether Arizona was a suitable
forum (step one). (Pontikis I, supra, at **7–8.) Given that uncertainty, we
adopted the approach of Delfosse v. C.A.C.I., Inc.-Federal (1990) 218
Cal.App.3d 683 (Delfosse), which approved the use of conditional orders
granting forum non conveniens motions where the statute of limitations has
already run in the more appropriate forum. (Pontikis I, supra, at **7–9.) We
reasoned that under Delfosse, in such a situation “ ‘[c]ourts are authorized to
dismiss the matter upon the condition that the defendant . . . agree to waive
the statute of limitations. [Citations.] This procedure avoids forum shopping
by plaintiffs, prevents defendants from being forced to litigate claims in
California when it is inappropriate to do so, and yet allows matters to be
heard on the merits.’ ” (Id. at *9.) We stated we would do likewise by
reversing the trial court’s order staying this lawsuit unconditionally and
remanding the case with directions to the trial court to condition any further
stay of proceedings on Atieva’s waiver of any Arizona statute of limitations
defense. (Id. at **8–10.) Our disposition stated: “The January 6, 2022 order
staying this case on grounds of forum non conveniens is reversed and the
cause is remanded. The trial court shall reconsider its stay order and
determine whether to lift the stay or to maintain it on the condition that

                                         3
Atieva agree to waive any statute of limitations defense it has under Arizona
law.” (Id. at **9–10.)
      On remand, Atieva affirmatively represented, both in written
submissions to the trial court (i.e., two case management statements) and
orally at an April 3, 2023 case management conference, that it agreed to
waive the statute of limitations under Arizona law, consistent with this
court’s decision. The trial court acknowledged the waiver and issued a case
management order on April 3, 2023 maintaining the stay in effect. Pontikis
then timely appealed from the April 3, 2023 case management order. (See
Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(3) [authorizing appeal from order granting
motion to stay action on the ground of inconvenient forum].)
                                 DISCUSSION
      Pontikis argues, first, that the trial court did not comply with our
directions. He asserts that “[i]nstead of . . . . performing the required task of
evaluating the suitability or availability of an Arizona forum as [we]
directed,” the trial court “only entertained [Atieva’s] preference of waiving
the [statute of limitations] as a defense.” The argument is difficult to follow,
but he appears to contend the trial court erred by declining to address his
argument that Arizona lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute
(specifically, due to the expiration of the statute of limitations).
      “We review de novo a claim that the trial court did not follow the
directions contained in the dispositional language of our previous opinion.
[Citation.] We look to the wording of our directions, read in conjunction with
the opinion as a whole.” (Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley (2023) 89
Cal.App.5th 258, 264 (Ruegg & Ellsworth).)

                                         4
      There was no error. Pontikis construes our disposition as if we invited
the court to re-examine the suitability of an Arizona forum anew. We did not.
The only issue Pontikis raised in the prior appeal was that, under the first
step of the forum non conveniens analysis, Arizona is an unsuitable forum
because his claims are barred there by the statute of limitations. He did not
argue separately that there would be any jurisdictional bar to proceeding in
that forum. Although in hindsight the language of our disposition might
have been more clear, it must be construed in light of our discussion and
resolution of that single issue. (See Ruegg & Ellsworth, supra, 89
Cal.App.5th at p. 270 [“to the extent our disposition was ambiguous, it is to
be interpreted ‘ “in light of the law and the appellate opinion” ’ ”].) We did
not intend to give Pontikis a second bite at the apple at overturning the
court’s initial decision to stay this case by allowing him to raise yet new
reasons why Arizona might be unsuitable, apart from the single issue he
raised on appeal. The time for him to have raised such issues to attack the
trial court’s ruling on Atieva’s non conveniens forum motion would have been
in the prior appeal. “Litigants are not free to continually reinvent their
position on legal issues that have been resolved against them by an appellate
court.” (Yu v. Signet Bank/Virginia (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 298, 312,
disapproved on other grounds, Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris
Cerullo World Evangelism (2018) 4 Cal.5th 637, 646.)
      Read in light of our opinion, the sole issue we directed the trial court to
address was whether to condition any further stay of proceedings on an
agreement by Atieva “to waive any statute of limitations defense it has under
Arizona law.” The trial court complied with our remittitur by confirming
Atieva’s agreement to waive the statute of limitations and then continuing
the stay in effect.

                                        5
      In his reply brief, Pontikis argues that “[t]here is no conditional basis
for allowing a defendant to escape the non-discretionary question of whether
a forum is suitable by . . . submit[ting] to a waiver of the statute of
limitations as a defense. . . .” That argument is forfeited. (See Herrera v.
Doctors Medical Center of Modesto (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 538, 548 (Herrera)
[“ ‘It is elementary that points raised for the first time in a reply brief are not
considered by the court’ ”].) It also conflicts with the law stated in our prior
opinion which is now binding as law of the case. (See Coffee-Rich, Inc. v.
Fielder (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 990, 1000 (Coffee-Rich) [Where appellate court
“ ‘states in its opinion a principle or rule of law, necessary to the decision,
that principle or rule becomes the law of the case, and must be adhered to
throughout its subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon
subsequent appeal’ ”].) And it conflicts with our directions to the trial court
to condition any further stay on defendants’ agreement to waive the statute
of limitations, which the court was jurisdictionally bound to follow. (See
Karlsen v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1526, 1530 (Karlsen)
[“ ‘When there has been a decision upon appeal, the trial court is reinvested
with jurisdiction of the cause, but only such jurisdiction as is defined by the
terms of the remittitur. The trial court is empowered to act only in
accordance with the direction of the reviewing court; action which does not
conform to those directions is void’ ”].)
      Pontikis also argues in his reply brief (somewhat contradictorily) that
we and/or the trial court erred by not imposing several additional
requirements on Atieva that were approved and adopted in Delfosse.
Specifically, an agreement to accept service in the alternate forum, a deadline
to file suit in the alternate forum, and the alternate forum’s acceptance of
defendants’ waiver of the statute of limitations. (See Delfosse, supra, 218

                                            6
Cal.App.3d at pp. 692–693.) We reject that argument for similar reasons as
his challenge to the statute of limitations waiver condition just discussed.
The argument is raised improperly for the first time in the reply brief and
thus forfeited (see Herrera, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at p. 548); and it conflicts
with the terms of our remittitur (see Karlsen, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p.
1530). The contention also is both moot and harmless: the record shows that
Pontikis has filed suit in Arizona, the litigation is pending there and Atieva
has appeared in the case and thereby submitted to the exercise of personal
jurisdiction, and Atieva has not asserted a statute of limitations defense.
      And, finally, Pontikis is wrong on the merits. Those additional
elements were imposed in Deflosse as a condition of dismissing a lawsuit on
forum non conveniens grounds, whereas here we imposed conditions on
staying the action. The critical difference is that when a stay is granted, the
trial court retains jurisdiction over the action and “can resume proceedings if
the foreign forum proves unsuitable.” (Archibald v. Cinerama Hotels (1976)
15 Cal.3d 853, 862 (Archibald); accord, Wang v. Fang (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th
907, 920–922; Investors Equity Life Holding Co. v. Schmidt (2015) 233
Cal.App.4th 1363, 1376.) Thus, “in determining whether to grant a motion
based on forum non conveniens, ‘[t]he trial court . . . has considerably wider
discretion . . . when it chooses to merely stay, rather than dismiss, an action
. . . precisely because under a stay California retains jurisdiction.” (Investors
Equity Life Holding Co., at p. 1376; see also Archibald, 15 Cal.3d at pp. 859–
860.) “[W]hen the assessment of the alternative forum’s suitability is
dependent upon factors beyond the control of the California courts—such as
the interpretation of another state’s laws—then a stay of the California
litigation might be justified, when an outright dismissal would not be.”
(Investors Equity Life Holding, at p. 1376.) Where, as in this case, the

                                        7
assessment of a suitable forum depends on a defendant’s stipulation to toll or
waive the statute of limitations in the alternative forum, a California court
may rely on that stipulation in granting a stay of proceedings because it will
retain the power to resume proceedings if “ ‘if the foreign action is
unreasonably delayed or fails to reach a resolution on the merits.’ ” (Id. at
pp. 1376–1377.) Thus, even if we or the trial court were empowered to revisit
the question, it was unnecessary to impose additional requirements as a
condition of staying this case beyond ensuring that Atieva would not raise a
statute of limitations defense under Arizona law.
      The fact that the trial court retains jurisdiction over the case and has
not dismissed it also disposes of nearly all of Pontikis’ remaining arguments.
He posits numerous reasons why Atieva’s express waiver of the statute of
limitations cannot and will not be enforced by Arizona courts, and other
reasons he might still be denied a hearing on the merits of his claim. 1 They
include speculation Atieva might raise the defense of laches, res judicata or
lack of subject matter jurisdiction premised on the running of the applicable
statute of limitations, as well as a contention that Atieva’s waiver of statute
of limitations violates public policy and thus is void (or “moot”) under Arizona
law. All of these arguments are premature. Because the trial court still has
jurisdiction, nothing will preclude Pontikis from asking the trial court to re-
evaluate the suitability of an Arizona forum if any of his concerns

      1  We summarily reject his contention under California law that
Atieva’s waiver of any defense it has under the Arizona statute of limitations
is unenforceable because it violates Code of Civil Procedure section 360.5.
That statute requires written waivers of any statute limitations defense
under “this title” to be in writing, and thus on its face applies only to a waiver
of a statute of limitations defense under California law. Furthermore, even if
the statute applied, Atieva’s written waiver sufficed.

                                        8
materialize. We will not prejudge those questions in this appeal nor decide
issues of Arizona law that are most appropriately resolved in the first
instance, if necessary, by the courts of that forum. (See Archibald, supra, 15
Cal.3d at p. 862 [declining to speculate how Hawaiian courts would decide
questions of Hawaii law, and noting that such questions “do[] not compel the
trial court to conclude as a matter of law that Hawaii is not a suitable
alternative forum”].)
      Finally, Pontikis also asserts that some of his statutory claims under
California law are not viable in Arizona. That issue was not within the scope
of the trial court’s jurisdiction to decide on remand, however. Moreover, the
fact that California law might be more favorable to him does not render
Arizona an unsuitable forum. As we previously noted, “[t]he suitability issue
focuses on where the action can be brought, not where it may be won.”
(Pontikis I, supra, at *2.) “[T]he law does not require that the alternative
forum, in order to be ‘suitable,’ provide equivalent relief.” (Shiley Inc. v.
Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 126, 132.) “ ‘[A]’ showing that recovery
would be difficult or even impossible in a foreign forum does not demonstrate
that the alternative forum is inadequate.’ ” (Id. at p. 133; see also Stangvik v.
Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 754 [under forum non conveniens doctrine,
“the fact that California law would likely provide . . . certain advantages of
procedural or substantive law cannot be considered as a factor in plaintiffs’
favor”].)
      We have considered Potonkis’ remaining arguments and conclude they
are without merit. In addition, Pontonkis has filed a request for sanctions
against Atieva and we deny it.

                                         9
                              DISPOSITION
      The order staying proceedings is affirmed. Respondents shall recover
their costs.

                                                           STEWART, P. J.
WE CONCUR:

RICHMAN, J.
MILLER, J.

                                     10