OpenAI has asked a California federal court to dismiss about 37 Tumbler Ridge victims' lawsuits under the forum non conveniens doctrine, arguing the cases belong in British Columbia, Law.com reported on Sept. 23, 2026. The story matters because it pairs that venue push with British Columbia's own San Francisco federal suit against OpenAI and Sam Altman, turning the litigation into a Canada-versus-California forum fight rather than a fresh merits ruling.
OpenAI is arguing forum non conveniens, not asking the court to decide negligence or failure-to-warn on the merits. Law.com's reporting places that motion beside British Columbia's own California filing. Earlier the same month, OpenAI moved against the victims' cases, saying discovery and third parties such as local government, law enforcement, and school officials are more accessible in Canada. MLex's Sep. 2 summary quotes the company's motion that victims, the shooter, police, mental-health providers, school officials, and much causation evidence sit in British Columbia beyond a California court's subpoena power, and that British Columbia courts and jurors are best positioned.
Lesley Weaver of Stranch, Jennings & Garvey in Oakland, with Vancouver-based CFM Lawyers, filed the provincial suit for British Columbia and School District No. 59 against OpenAI and Altman, according to Law.com. That filing remains the separate failure-to-warn claim already covered; here it is context for why the venue clash is news. OpenAI's motion also says, per MLex, that the actions will overlap with Canada's examination of its own institutions and that unique British Columbian interests outweigh California's generalized interest in claims against a company headquartered there.
What remains open is how the Northern District of California rules on forum non conveniens, whether victims' counsel keep the cases in California, and how any transfer or dismissal interacts with the province's parallel California action. Hearing calendars were not locked from open fetches for this article, so treat scheduling as unverified until court dockets are rechecked.