David

When a defendant moves to dismiss a multi-defendant action for forum non conveniens, the defendant is required to establish that an alternative forum exists in which the action could be brought against all defendants. (American Cemwood. Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 431, 433 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 670 ] (American Cemwood).) If this rule is enforced without exception, an enterprising plaintiff could preclude a forum non conveniens dismissal by naming an additional defendant over whom the alternative forum could not exercise jurisdiction. The question raised by this case is whether the presence of a so-called “nominal defendant” can prevent the remaining defendants from obtaining a forum non conveniens dismissal when, in the absence of the nominal defendant, the action can and should be pursued in alternative forums. We conclude that the presence of a nominal defendant cannot defeat a forum non conveniens dismissal which should otherwise be granted.

That situation occurred in this case, and the trial court granted the forum non conveniens motion in favor of all defendants, including the nominal defendant, resulting in an effective dismissal of…