“Even if the court has subject matter and personal jurisdiction, it may stay or dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum. If the court finds that ‘in the interest of substantial justice’ an action filed in California should be adjudicated elsewhere, it may stay or dismiss the action on such conditions as may be just. The statute codifies the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens. This is not a jurisdictional doctrine. Rather, it is ‘an equitable doctrine invoking the discretionary power of a court to decline to exercise the jurisdiction [to stay or dismiss] it has over a transitory cause of action when it believes that the action may be more appropriately and justly tried elsewhere.’ The court’s ruling on a forum non conveniens motion may turn on whether dismissal, or only a stay, is sought. If a stay is granted, the California court retains jurisdiction, so that if for any reason plaintiff is denied a prompt trial in the alternative forum, the California court can order the action resumed in California. On the other hand, once a dismissal is ordered, the California court loses jurisdiction and there is nothing left to resume. For this reason, the court’s power to dismiss an action for inconvenient forum is more limited than its power to stay. Where it is unclear at the time of the hearing whether the action could proceed in the other forum, the California court should stay rather than dismiss the California action.”
[California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial [citations to primary sources omitted]]
