Guh-Siesel v. Siesel

548 P.3d 585

2024 WY 54

Lucia GUH-SIESEL, Appellant (Plaintiff),

v.Brian Allan SIESEL, Appellee (Defendant).

S-23-0206

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

May 16, 2024

Appeal from the District Court of Teton County, The Honorable Kate G. McKay, Judge

Representing Appellant: Anna Reeves Olson, Long Reimer Winegar, LLP, Casper, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Olson.

Representing Appellee: Leah C. Schwartz, Parsons Behle & Latimer, Jackson, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Schwartz.

Before FOX, C.J., and KAUTZ,^* BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.

GRAY, Justice.

[¶1] Appellant Lucia Guh-Siesel appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her divorce action against Appellee Brian Allan Siesel on grounds of forum non conveniens. We find that the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed the case and reverse and remand for further proceedings.

ISSUE

[¶2] Did the district court abuse its discretion when it dismissed Mrs. Guh-Siesel’s complaint on grounds of forum non conveniens?

FACTS

[¶3] Mrs. Guh-Siesel filed her Wyoming complaint for divorce on January 4, 2023. Mrs. Guh-Siesel alleged that she had been a resident of Teton County, Wyoming, for more than 60 days immediately prior to its filing. She also alleged that she and Mr. Siesel were the parents of LS, who had resided in Wyoming for five consecutive months prior to the filing of the complaint. Mr. Siesel filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Wyoming was an inconvenient forum and that California was a better forum because he had not been in Wyoming since October 2022, "[a]ll potential trial witnesses" were in California, and he and Mrs. Guh-Siesel had never resided together in Wyoming.¹

[¶4] The district court held a hearing on the motion² where evidence was elicited. The evidence relevant to the motion follows. The parties were married on November 9, 1996, in California. They had three children. When this matter commenced two had reached the age of majority and, one, LS, was a minor.³ For most of their marriage, the parties resided in California where Mr. Siesel was a high school science teacher and Mrs. Guh-Siesel, an attorney. In 2022, Mr. Siesel, Mrs. Guh-Siesel, and LS decided to relocate to Wyoming, and on July 18, 2022, Mr. Siesel and Mrs. Guh-Siesel signed a lease for a home in Wilson, Wyoming. At the time, Mrs. Guh-Siesel had been diagnosed with an aggressive form of breast cancer, was undergoing chemotherapy and radiation treatments in California, and had undergone surgery.

[¶5] Mr. Siesel and LS moved to Wilson in August 2022. Mr. Siesel, who was on leave from his teaching job in California, stayed in Wilson with LS for approximately eight weeks. While in Wyoming, Mr. Siesel took steps to become a resident. He registered the family’s two cars in Wyoming, opened a post office box in Wilson, changed his mailing address from California to Wilson, registered to vote in Wyoming, got a Wyoming driver’s license, and found a Wyoming primary care physician. On October 15, 2022, Mr. Siesel returned to California for work and has remained in California since that time. Mrs. Guh-Siesel, still battling cancer, arrived in Wyoming in October 2022. On her arrival, Mrs. Guh-Siesel took steps to become a Wyoming resident. She registered to vote, opened a checking account at the Bank of Jackson Hole, obtained a Wyoming driver’s license, and established medical care with a Wyoming primary care physician and an oncologist. Mrs. Guh-Siesel joined the local cancer "survivorship program," received weekly care at St. John’s Health, and joined the Jackson Recreation Center. Mrs. Guh-Siesel worked remotely from Wyoming and returned to California on most Fridays as part of her work requirements.

[¶6] In late January 2023, Mrs. Guh-Siesel’s cancer worsened, and she returned to California for three weeks of treatment. Her California doctors advised her to take medical leave from work. Mrs. Guh-Siesel took medical leave and returned to Wyoming. Because Mrs. Guh-Siesel was no longer working, rent for the Wilson home became unaffordable and she terminated the lease. Mrs. Guh-Siesel and LS lived with friends for the remainder of the school year. Except for temporary absences—travel for work prior to her leave of absence, medical care, a school trip for LS, and the Thanksgiving holiday—Mrs. Guh-Siesel was in Wyoming from October 15, 2022, through May 2023. When the school year ended, Mrs. Guh-Siesel and LS returned to California for the summer allowing Mrs. Guh-Siesel to obtain cancer treatment not available in Wyoming and to spend time with the parties’ adult children. In August 2023, Mrs. Guh-Siesel and LS returned to Wyoming.

[¶7] After the hearing, the district court granted Mr. Siesel’s motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. Mrs. Guh-Siesel timely appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1–4] [¶8] We review a district court’s rulings regarding forum non conveniens for an abuse of discretion. Saunders v. Saunders, 2019 WY 82, ¶ 10, 445 P.3d 991, 996 (Wyo. 2019). In doing so, we recognize that "[a]lthough the doctrine of forum non conveniens ‘leaves much to the discretion of the [district] court,’ the exercise of that discretion is not unlimited." Saunders, ¶ 38, 445 P.3d at 1001 (quoting Espinoza v. Evergreen Helicopters, Inc., 359 Or. 63, 376 P.3d 960, 985 (2016) (quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508, 67 S.Ct. 839, 843, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947))). In the exercise of its discretion "[t]he district court must recognize the plaintiff has the right to choose his forum; it cannot dismiss a case simply because another forum may be generally more convenient than the one chosen by the plaintiff." Saunders, ¶ 38, 445 P.3d at 1001-02 (citing Picketts v. Int’l Playtex, Inc., 215 Conn. 490, 576 A.2d 518, 524 (1990); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 84 (Am. Law Inst. 1971)).

DISCUSSION

I. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it dismissed Mrs. Guh-Siesel's complaint on grounds of forum non conveniens?

[¶9] Mrs. Guh-Siesel had been a Teton County, Wyoming, resident for more than 60 days immediately preceding her divorce filing. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-107 sets forth the requirements for a Wyoming district court to acquire jurisdiction over a divorce action:

(a) No divorce shall be granted unless one of the parties has resided in this state for sixty (60) days immediately preceding the time of filing the complaint, or the marriage was solemnized in this state and one of the parties has resided in this state from the time of the marriage until the filing of the complaint.

(b) A married person who at the time of filing a complaint for divorce resides in this state is a resident although his spouse may reside elsewhere.

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-107 (LexisNexis 2023).

[¶10] In his motion to dismiss, Mr. Siesel did not dispute that the district court had jurisdiction over the action pursuant to § 20-2-107 but asserted that the action should be dismissed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

[5–7] [¶11] The doctrine of forum non conveniens, Latin for "inconvenient forum," addresses the "rare" case where "jurisdiction and venue for an action are proper in a forum," but the forum is "seriously inconvenient to the parties, witnesses, or the court." Espinoza, 376 P.3d at 972; see also Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 643 F.3d 1216, 1224 (9th Cir. 2011) ("The doctrine of forum non conveniens is a drastic exercise of the court’s ‘inherent power’ because, unlike a mere transfer of venue, it results in the dismissal of a plaintiff’s case. … Therefore, … forum non conveniens as ‘an exceptional tool to be employed sparingly,’ and not a ‘doctrine that compels plaintiffs to choose the optimal forum for their claim.’" (quoting Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104, 1118 (9th Cir. 2002))). Forum non conveniens "allows a court with jurisdiction to dismiss a case because the parties and justice would be better served if the case were brought elsewhere." Lund v. Lund, 2022 WY 2, ¶ 25, 501 P.3d 1222, 1227 (Wyo. 2022) (citing Pokrovskaya v. Van Genderen, 2021 WY 68, ¶ 9, 487 P.3d 228, 230 (Wyo. 2021)). Under the doctrine, a court with jurisdiction "[may decline to] entertain the suit if it believes itself to be a seriously inconvenient forum[,] provided that a more appropriate forum is available to the plaintiff." Saunders, ¶ 21, 445 P.3d at 998 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 84).

[8–11] [¶12] To determine whether to dismiss a case for forum non conveniens, Wyoming courts apply a two-stage test originally articulated in Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 506-10, 67 S.Ct. at 842-44. Saunders, ¶¶ 26, 31, 445 P.3d at 999-1000 (adopting Gulf Oil test).

In the first stage, the court determines whether an alternate forum is available and capable of providing relief. This is a threshold issue because, if no adequate alternate forum exists, the court must not dismiss the case. To be considered adequate, the parties must be amenable to service of process in the alternate forum and the court in the alternate forum must have jurisdiction over the matter. In addition, the alternate forum’s law must be capable of providing a meaningful remedy. The alternate forum is not adequate if some procedural bar, such as a statute of limitations, would prevent litigation.

In the second stage, the court balances the private and public interests to determine whether it should grant the motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. In doing so, the court must keep in mind the plaintiff’s choice of a forum should not be disturbed except for weighty reasons. Stated another way, a court should dismiss a case for forum non conveniens only when the private and public interests strongly favor litigating the matter in an alternate forum.

Lund, ¶ 26, 501 P.3d at 1227-28 (quoting Saunders, ¶¶ 27-28, 445 P.3d at 999).

[¶13] Mrs. Guh-Siesel contends that the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed the case because it failed to properly analyze the Gulf Oil factors. We exam- ine the district court’s...