OpenAI has asked a California federal court to dismiss about 37 lawsuits brought by Tumbler Ridge victims, arguing the cases belong in British Columbia, according to a news report on Sept. 23, 2026. Its motion relies on forum non conveniens, the argument that another court is a more appropriate place to hear a case. British Columbia is meanwhile suing OpenAI and Sam Altman in federal court in San Francisco. For now, the fight over the victims' cases is about whether they are heard in Canada or California, not about whether OpenAI was negligent or failed to warn.
OpenAI first moved against the victims' cases earlier in September, saying evidence-gathering and outside parties such as local government, police and school officials are easier to reach in Canada. According to a Sept. 2 news report, its motion says the victims, the shooter, police, mental-health providers, school officials and much of the evidence on what caused the harm are in British Columbia, beyond the reach of a California court's subpoenas, and that British Columbia's courts and jurors are best placed to hear the cases.
Lesley Weaver of Stranch, Jennings & Garvey in Oakland, with Vancouver-based CFM Lawyers, filed the province's suit for British Columbia and School District No. 59 against OpenAI and Altman, according to the Sept. 23 report. That suit is a separate failure-to-warn claim. OpenAI's motion also says, according to the Sept. 2 report, that the cases will overlap with Canada's own examination of its institutions, and that unique British Columbian interests outweigh California's generalized interest in claims against a company headquartered there.
The federal court for the Northern District of California has yet to rule. The schedule the court approved on Sept. 29 set Oct. 15 as the deadline for OpenAI's forum motion and Dec. 17, 2026, for a hearing. Also unsettled is whether the victims' lawyers can keep the cases in California, and how any transfer or dismissal would affect the province's own case there.
Correction (Oct. 5): an earlier version said the hearing schedule was not clear. When this story was published, the court had set a hearing for Nov. 5; on Sept. 29 it set a new schedule, with the hearing on Dec. 17, 2026.