Opinion
Page __
__ Cal.App.2d __ 259 P.2d 664 18 Cal. Comp. Cases 223 PRICE v. ATCHISON T. & S. F. RY. CO. Civ. 19614. California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division July 27, 1953Hearing Granted Sept. 25, 1953.
[259 P.2d 665] Hildebrand, Bills & McLeod, D. W. Brobst, Oakland, for appellant.
Robert W. Walker and Frederic A. Jacobus, Los Angeles, for respondent.
VALLÉE, Justice.
Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of dismissal entered on the granting of a motion of defendant to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens in an action for damages for personal injuries brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act.
45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq.
Plaintiff, a citizen and resident of the state of New Mexico, was injured in New Mexico while in the employ of defendant. Defendant is a Kansas corporation, engaged in interstate commerce, authorized to and doing business in New Mexico and California. Plaintiff commenced the action in the superior court of Los Angeles County and obtained service on defendant in that county. Defendant answered and as a special defense pleaded forum non conveniens. It then filed a motion, supported by affidavit, to dismiss the action on that ground. The answer and the affidavits stated facts showing harassment, inconvenience, and expense, sufficient to have warranted the granting of the motion if the doctrine of forum non conveniens may be applied. The motion was granted and a judgment of dismissal entered. Plaintiff appeals.
In the recent case of Schultz v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 118 Cal.App.2d 169, 257 P.2d 1003, all of the points made on this appeal were decided. We held in Schultz that the courts of California may not, consistently with the Constitution of the United States, decline on the basis of forum non conveniens to take jurisdiction of an action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, founded on a cause of action which arose without the state, brought by a noncitizen and a nonresident against a foreign corporation doing business within the state. That decision is controlling here and compels a reversal of the judgment.
Reversed.
SHINN, P. J., and PARKER WOOD, J., concur.