Boaz

Boaz v. Boyle & Co.

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 1131·40 Cal. App. 4th 700·46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 888·95 Daily Journal DAR 15482·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8923
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 21, 1995B076776California8,148 words

Opinion

Opinion

Epstein, J.

The grandmothers of the plaintiff-appellants in this case ingested the drug diethylstilbestrol (DES) while pregnant with appellants’ mothers. It is claimed that, as a result of the ingestion, appellants’ mothers suffered disabilities that manifested themselves at various points after birth and that their children (appellants) suffered similar injuries when they were bom. All but one of the appellants is a resident of the state of New York or New Jersey. The DES ingestion occurred in the state of New York. All of them pursued actions against defendant-respondents in that state. Each of the respondents manufactured DES during the period of the grandmothers’ ingestion, and all but one does business in California. Only one appellant is domiciled in this state. New York State declined to recognize the preconception tort proffered by appellants. Having failed to succeed in New York, appellants sought relief in California.

The trial court dismissed the actions of the nonresident appellants under the doctrine forum non conveniens. (The action of the California appellant, Lara Ameen, was not dismissed.) We shall affirm the orders of dismissal. We do so because the only basis for…

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.