Roulier

Roulier v. Cannondale

Good Law
101 Cal. App. 4th 1180·124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 877·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4620·2002 Daily Journal DAR 10349·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8268
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 9, 2002B145607California3,454 words

Opinion

Opinion

Epstein, J.

Jean Daniel Roulier appeals from a judgment of dismissal based on forum non conveniens. He contends that Switzerland is not a suitable alternative forum, and that the balance of private and public interest factors weighs in favor of retaining jurisdiction in California. While we agree with the trial court that Switzerland is a suitable forum, in the context of the unusual procedural history of this case, we also conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its original holding that the balance of private and public factors favors trial in California. We therefore reverse the judgment entered by the trial court in compliance with the alternative writ issued by this court.

Factual and Procedural Summary

Jean Daniel Roulier is a resident of Switzerland. In 1998, on a visit to California, he purchased a Cannondale bicycle from defendant Two Wheels One Planet (Two Wheels). On July 15, 1998, he was seriously injured in Switzerland while riding the Cannondale bicycle.

Defendant Cannondale designs and manufactures bicycles. It is incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in Connecticut. Its products are manufactured in Pennsylvania and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.