Hurtado v. Ford Motor CA2/1

Filed 11/20/14 Hurtado v. Ford Motor CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

JOSE HURTADO et al., B247469 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County v. Super. Ct. Nos. BC434423/JCCP4160) FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Anthony J. Mohr, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Herb Fox, Herb Fox; Gnau & Tamez Law Group, Daniel R. Tamez for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Larson, Garrick & Lightfoot, Arnold D. Larson, Mary P. Lightfoot, Jorge A Burgos for Defendant and Respondent Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC. Snell & Wilmer, Daniel S. Rodman, Todd E. Lundell for Defendant and Respondent Ford Motor Company. ___________________________________

A vehicle manufactured by defendant Ford Motor Company and bearing tires manufactured by defendant Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations (hereafter Bridgestone) was involved in a single-auto accident in Mexico in 2009, injuring the driver and two passengers and resulting in the deaths of two other passengers. All injured parties were Mexican residents. They and plaintiff Jose Antonio Hurtado (hereafter Hurtado), the husband of one of the victims and an alleged California resident, sued Ford, Bridgestone, and two individuals in California, alleging their injuries were caused by a defective Bridgestone tire that the other defendants negligently installed or allowed to remain on the vehicle. After one individual defendant was discharged in bankruptcy and the other defaulted, the trial court severed the action as to the defaulting defendant and stayed it as to Ford and Bridgestone on the ground of forum non conveniens. Plaintiffs appeal, contending: (1) The trial court improperly severed their claims against the defaulting defendant from those against Ford and Bridgestone; (2) Ford and Bridgestone waived their right to complain about the forum by conducting extensive discovery before moving to stay the action; and (3) the evidence does not weigh in favor of Mexico as a forum for this litigation. We affirm. BACKGROUND The facts are undisputed. On April 7, 2009, Luz Maria Hurtado Verdugo was driving in Sonora, Mexico in a Ford Explorer bearing Bridgestone tires. Her passengers were Enriqueta Verdugo Ruelas, Luz Maria Vazquez Hurtado, Luz Brizeyda Hurtado Verdugo, and Antonio Alonzo Perez Hurtado. She lost control of the vehicle and it left the roadway and rolled over, killing Luz Maria Vazquez Hurtado and Antonio Alonzo Perez Hurtado and injuring everyone else. On March 24, 2010, the surviving accident victims and their family members, including Hurtado, the husband of Enriqueta Verdugo Ruelas, father of Luz Maria Hurtado Verdugo, and guardian ad litem Luz Maria Vazquez Hurtado, filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court, naming as defendants Ford, Bridgestone, Rouiben Djoujian (the original owner of the vehicle), and Peter Ramos, an intermediate owner.