Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 23STCV15438, Date: 2023-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15438    Hearing Date: October 25, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion to transfer is GRANTED.

            On 9/25/2023, Plaintiff Anika McFall (Plaintiff) filed suit against Meta Platforms, Inc., and Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC (collectively, Defendants), alleging: (1) violation of Computer Fraud CPC section 501; (2) breach of implied covenant; (3) misrepresentations; and (4) negligence.

            Now, Defendants move to transfer this action to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo.

Factual Background

Each of Plaintiff’s claims arise from her Instagram account—specifically, Meta’s purported response to Plaintiff’s Instagram account being hacked by an unknown third party.

Discussion

            Defendants argue that this action is appropriately heard in San Mateo County because: (1) the parties have already agreed that the present dispute should be tried in San Mateo County; and (2) Plaintiff freely and voluntarily entered into Instagram’s Terms of Use (TOU) when making an Instagram account, and this TOU establishes that the proper venue for the present action is exclusively in San Mateo County.

Venue is generally proper where the parties agree it is proper. Battaglia Enters., Inc. v. Superior Court (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 309, 317-18 (affirming the trial court’s decision to transfer the case to a venue contractually agreed upon by both parties). Moreover, in accordance with CCP section 395.5, parties can agree to forum selection clauses that establish the proper venue for California state court actions. (Battaglia, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 317.) California courts will enforce forum selection clauses that are: (1) mandatory; (2) not unreasonable; and (3) aligned with public policy. (See Intershop Comms. v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 191, 198-201.)

            Here, the express language in Instagram’s TOU establishes San Mateo County as the exclusive jurisdiction for claims arising out of or related to Instagram that are brought in state court.

            In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the forum selection cause cannot be enforced because it is part of a contract of adhesion.

While Courts have found adhesion contracts to evince a “degree” of procedural unconscionability in the employment context, this is because “the arbitration agreement stands between the employee and necessary employment, and few employees are in a position to refuse a job because of an arbitration agreement.” (Little v. Auto Stiegler, Inc. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1064, 1071.) By contrast, an adhesive consumer contract does not stand between a consumer and “necessary” consumption. Because Plaintiff did not face the same economic pressure when deciding whether or not to sign up for an Instagram account as an individual applying for a job would have, the Court declines to find any degree of procedural unconscionability. Plaintiff has also not identified any substantive unconscionability.

The Court also disagrees with Plaintiff that public policy does not favor the form selection clause or that the clause is not mandatory.

As to the first contention, protecting parties’ legitimate expectations is important “for businesses with nationwide customers[,] to limit the risk and expenses of litigation under different laws in every state.” (Abat v. Chase Bank USA, N.A. (C.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2010) 738 F. Supp. 2d 1093, 1096) (enforcing the choice of law provision between two parties). While California has a public policy interest in providing its residents access to its courts, the California “Supreme Court has concluded that policy is satisfied where a plaintiff freely and voluntarily negotiates away his or her right to a [particular] forum.” (CQL Original Prods., Inc. v. Nat’l Hockey League Players’ Assn. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1347, 1353) (finding the forum selection clause was not against public policy).

As to the second contention, the TOU’s forum selection clause includes definitive language that exclusively selects San Mateo County as the proper venue for all state court actions. California state courts routinely find that forum selection clauses are mandatory when employing similarly exclusionary language. (See, e.g., Net2Phone, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 583, 586 (enforcing a forum selection clause stating that any dispute “will be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts in the State of New Jersey”.)

In sum, the Court finds the forum selection clause to be valid and enforceable, and transfer to be mandatory. The Court finds this venue to be reasonable and aligned with public policy.

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to transfer is granted.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  October    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.