## Facts

- CEYA Flight MU5210 crashed into a lake in China shortly after takeoff on November 21, 2004, killing 47 passengers, 6 crew members, and 2 people on the ground.
- Nearly all victims were Chinese citizens; tickets were purchased in China; the crew was trained and licensed in China.
- The aircraft, a Bombardier CRJ-200 LR, was designed, manufactured, assembled, and tested in Canada and sold in Quebec.
- The aircraft’s CF34 engines were designed and manufactured by General Electric; the engines were not designed, manufactured, assembled, tested, or shipped in California.
- The aircraft was operated and maintained exclusively in China; relevant airline facilities and maintenance were located in China.
- Victims’ representatives sued GE, Bombardier entities, and China Eastern Airlines in California state court on wrongful-death and product-liability theories.
- Defendants moved to dismiss or stay for forum non conveniens in favor of litigation in China, consenting to Chinese jurisdiction and agreeing to waive limitations defenses if plaintiffs filed in China within six months.
- The trial court stayed the consolidated actions on forum non conveniens grounds; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether China was a suitable alternative forum for the claims arising from the crash.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in staying the California actions after weighing private and public interest factors under California’s forum non conveniens doctrine.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the stay.
- China was a suitable forum because it could exercise jurisdiction and provide a remedy; differences in procedures or lower damages did not make the forum unsuitable.
- The trial court reasonably found private interest factors favored China because the accident, operations, maintenance, investigation, and many witnesses and records were located in China.
- The trial court reasonably found public interest factors favored China because China had the strongest local interest in the dispute, while California’s connection was limited and a California trial would impose burdens tied to foreign facts and likely foreign law.
- Plaintiffs’ California forum choice received reduced deference because plaintiffs and operative events were predominantly foreign.
- Under abuse-of-discretion review, the appellate court would not reweigh the factors where the trial court had a reasonable basis for its ruling.

## Legal Principles

- A California court may stay or dismiss an action under Code of Civil Procedure § 410.30 when substantial justice indicates the case should be heard in an out-of-state forum.
- Forum non conveniens analysis requires (1) determining whether the alternative forum is suitable (jurisdiction plus some remedy with due process) and (2) balancing private and public interest factors to decide whether the alternative forum is significantly more appropriate.
- A forum is not rendered unsuitable merely because it offers different procedures or lower potential recovery than California.
- A foreign plaintiff’s choice of a California forum is entitled to less deference than a resident plaintiff’s choice.
- Appellate review of a forum non conveniens ruling is for abuse of discretion; reversal requires an unreasonable balancing or unsupported findings.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a forum non conveniens stay directing a China-centered aviation disaster case to proceed in China, emphasizing China’s suitability and the concentration of evidence, witnesses, and regulatory interests abroad, while applying deferential abuse-of-discretion review to the trial court’s balancing.


Guimei v. Gen. Elec. Co., 172 Cal. App. 4th 689, 91 Cal. Rptr. 3d 178 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)