In Boaz v. Boyle & Co. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 700, the court affirmed the dismissal of claims of New York residents, who allegedly sustained injuries due to the ingestion of certain drugs by their grandmothers while pregnant with the plaintiffs' mothers, even though New York did not recognize the preconception tort on which their California action was based. The court noted that, under the principles articulated in Stangvik, the fact that the alternative forum did not recognize the remedy relied upon by the non-resident plaintiffs did not preclude a forum non conveniens dismissal of their claims. (Boaz v. Boyle & Co., supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at p. 711.) The court emphasized it had been cited to no case that had rejected "dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds because the law of the alternate jurisdiction is adverse to plaintiffs. All cases that have rejected the doctrine on the basis of a deficiency in the alternate forum have done so because of a lack of jurisdiction over the defendant in that forum, an unwaived limitations bar or because the forum is in a foreign country in which a due process decision by an independent judiciary cannot be expected. " (Id. at p. 712.)