Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV00315, Date: 2024-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00315    Hearing Date: April 23, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Wood v. Per Ove Ericson, Case No. 24SMCV00315

Hearing Date: April 23, 2024

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay on the Grounds of Inconvenient Forum

Plaintiff sues regarding a real estate development project. Defendant files this motion for forum non conveniens, as the parties’ contractual agreement contains a forum selection provision, providing that disputes be litigated in Yucatan, Mexico. The motion to dismiss is not opposed. The defendant served this motion by mail and email on March 21, 2024 (03/21/24 proof of service).

Defendant’s request for judicial notice of the complaint filed January 22, 2024 and Exh. A thereto is GRANTED, as it is a court document under Evidence Code 452(d). The court does admit the documents for their truth.

Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30 states: “(a) When a court upon motion of a party of its own motion finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.”¿

A section 410.30 motion can be used to enforce contractual forum-selection clauses. (Grove v. Juul Labs, Inc. (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 1081, 1090.) “California favors contractual forum selection clauses so long as they are entered into freely and voluntarily, and their enforcement would not be unreasonable.” (America Online, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1, 11). When a section 410.30 motion is based on a mandatory forum clause, “the test is simply whether application of the clause is unfair or unreasonable, and the clause is usually given effect. Claims that the previously chosen forum is unfair or inconvenient are generally rejected. (Berg v. MTC Electronics Technologies (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 349, 358.) A forum selection clause is presumed valid; the party seeking to void enforcement of a forum selection clause bears the burden of establishing that enforcement would be unreasonable under the circumstances. (Id.; See also Trident Labs, Inc. v. Merrill Lynch Commercial Finance Corp. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 147, 154).

The sixth clause of the parties’ contract established states for all matters related to the interpretation and enforcement of the contract the parties submit to the jurisdiction of the competent judges and courts in the city of Merida, Yucatan and expressly waive any other jurisdiction (Villamil Decl., para. 8). The ninth clause of the contract confirms that neither party committed fraud, error, or bad faith that would cast doubt on their consent (Villamil Decl. para. 9). The clause is mandatory because it expressly mandates the litigation in Meridia, not Los Angeles. Plaintiff does not submit opposition.  

Moreover, the court finds no basis for the matter to be in Los Angeles. Yucatan provides an adequate alternative forum, which both parties expressly agreed to in the contract documents. The alleged conduct occurred in Yucatan; defendant and witnesses reside in Yucatan, and all physical evidence is in Yucatan. The forum selection clause is enforceable. GRANTED.

The matter is DISMISSED without prejudice, and plaintiff may refile in the selected forum.