Shiley Inc. v. Superior Court

Good Law
4 Cal. App. 4th 126·6 Cal. Rptr. 2d 38
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 3, 1992Docket Nos. G011110, G011111California3,259 words

Opinion

Opinion

Moore, J.

Following the denial of their motions to dismiss or stay tort actions filed by out of state residents, petitioners seek peremptory writs of mandate directing the court to issue orders staying or dismissing the actions on the ground of forum non conveniens or to reconsider the motions. At the time of its ruling, the superior court did not have the benefit of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 556 , 819 P.2d 14 ] (hereafter Stangvik). Because it appears the trial judge may have relied on cases disapproved in Stangvik, we direct the court to reconsider the motions in light of Stangvik and the following discussion.

I

Shiley, incorporated in California, and Pfizer, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York, produced artificial heart valves in this state for worldwide distribution. Grindley, a California corporation, supplied flanges for those products. Real parties in interest are 39 plaintiffs who filed complaints for damages, asserting product liability and related claims arising from the implantation of petitioners’ heart valves at hospitals outside California. In one case…

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.