|
1484 REVIEW DENIED In an asbestos case in which most of plaintiffs' alleged contact with defendants' products occurred in Montana and none in California, plaintiffs resided primarily in Montana and never in California, most of the potential witnesses were from Montana and none from California, and all of the treating doctors were from Montana, a trial court did not abuse its discretion in staying the actions on the ground of forum non conveniens and providing that if, after filing the actions in Montana, plaintiffs could conclusively show Montana was not a suitable alternative jurisdiction, plaintiffs could return to the California court and request that the stays be lifted.CitationHANSEN v OWENS-CORNING (Asbestos Forum) 51 CA4 753 [See: CCP 410.30; Stangvik v Shiley 54 C3 744]
|
|
