# Holmes v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc.

> California Court of Appeal · May 24, 1984 · 156 Cal. App. 3d 372

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9728489

## Case

- **Full name:** CATHERINE HOLMES Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SYNTEX LABORATORIES, INC., Et Al., Defendants and Respondents
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** May 24, 1984
- **Citations:** 156 Cal. App. 3d 372; 202 Cal. Rptr. 773
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Low
- **Judges:** King, Low
- **Cited by:** 16 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9728489

## Opinion text

LOW, P. J.
I concur in the decision to reverse and in the scholarly analysis of my colleagues. The trial court granted the inconvenient forum motion and conditionally dismissed the action without adequately considering all the factors that guide an equitable exercise of its discretion. Undue emphasis was given to the burdens heaped upon the Superior Court of Santa Clara County.
However, I believe the appropriate disposition would be to remand the motion to the trial court. The court should reconsider in light of our analysis, giving proper evaluation and weight to all the factors. The trial court should also receive further evidence (Evid. Code, § 311) to assess whether British laws adequately protect plaintiffs and determine if Britain’s legal system offers a suitable alternative forum. The record does not contain sufficient information whether the British remedies are deficient, if its procedures ineffective, or if the potentials for a just recovery so impotent as to conclude, as a matter of law, that substantial justice and fundamental fair *392 ness require continued proceedings in this state despite the higher litigation cost and the likelihood of inconvenience to both sides.
In the exercise of its sound discretion, the trial court needs to determine, among other things, if the current British remedies of negligence supported by a “liberal rule of res ipsa loquitur” in actual application would provide an appropriate alternative. The trial court should also be given the opportunity to briefly defer its ruling and fashion other conditions for limited (in time and scope) discovery to partly resolve the question of the California defendants’ participation in the development, production or marketing of Norinyl. Opposing affidavits would permit a more accurate assessment of California’s public interest, if any, in retaining or transferring this action.
A petition for a rehearing was denied June 22, 1984, and the opinion was modified to read as printed. Low, P. J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted. Respondents’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied August 22, 1984.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9728489. Public record. Not legal advice.