Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV01656, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01656, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01656 Hearing Date: May 24, 2023 Dept: C

jean hardy v. forest river, inc. et al.

CASE NO.: 22NWCV01656

HEARING: 5/24/23 @ 1:30 PM

#10

TENTATIVE RULING

Accordingly, Defendant Forest River, Inc.’s motion to stay the action is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Forest River, Inc. (Defendant) moves for dismissal or staying of the instant matter for forum non conveniens pursuant to CCP §§ 410.30 and 418.10.

Legal Standard

Given the significance attached to forum selection clauses, the courts have placed a substantial burden on a plaintiff seeking to defeat such a clause, requiring it to demonstrate enforcement of the clause would be unreasonable under the circumstances of the case…. That is, that the forum selected would be unavailable or unable to accomplish substantial justice…. Moreover, in determining reasonability, the choice of forum requirement must have some rational basis in light of the facts underlying the transaction…. However, “neither inconvenience nor additional expense in litigating in the selected forum is part of the test of unreasonability.”…. Finally, a forum selection clause will not be enforced if to do so will bring about a result contrary to the public policy of the forum….

[T]he party opposing the enforcement of the forum selection clause, bears the burden of proof…. “In contrast with the abuse-of-discretion standard of review applicable in a noncontractual forum non conveniens motion, a substantial-evidence standard of review applies where a forum has been selected by contract.”….

CQL Original Prods., Inc. v. Nat’l Hockey League Players' Assn. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1347, 1353-54.

Discussion

Mandatory v. Permissive

The forum selection clause is mandatory because is the sole jurisdiction for deciding legal disputes. Plaintiff argues that the forum selection clause is permissive and not mandatory because it concludes with “you may also have other rights, which vary from state to state.” Plaintiff argues that the language means that Plaintiff retains her unwaivable rights under the Song-Beverly Act and, thus, the forum selection clause is permissive. The Court agrees that Plaintiff cannot waive her rights under the Song-Beverly Act and the clause alerts purchasers to that fact. It does not follow that the clause qualifies the exclusive language that precedes it which mandates that Indiana is the exclusive forum because it is only an alert that additional rights beyond those provided by Indiana courts may be available. Thus, the clause is mandatory because it provides that Indiana courts are the only jurisdiction for deciding legal disputes.

Enforceability

Ordinarily the party opposing enforcement of a forum selection clause bears the burden of proving enforceability, however, “that burden is reversed when the claims at issue are based on unwaivable rights created by California statutes.” (Verdugo v. Alliantgroup L.P. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 141, 147.)

Defendant has met its burden of proving that the forum selection clause is enforceable because Plaintiff signed the forum selection clause, the forum selection clause is not unconscionable, and Plaintiff’s Song-Beverly Act rights can be readily preserved. First, Plaintiff argues that there is evidence to rebut the presumption that she signed Defendant’s limited warranty, however, Plaintiff signed a separate page which contains the forum selection clause. (Peacock Decl., Exh. B.) Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff signed and agreed to the forum selection clause. Second, and similarly, Plaintiff argues that the warranty clause is unconscionable because Plaintiff was not given a copy of the limited warranty to review prior to signing and agreeing to the limited warranty. However, Plaintiff did sign a separate page with only the forum selection clause. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff signed and agreed to the forum selection clause. Finally, Plaintiff argues that a stipulation to not oppose applying the Song-Beverly Act in Indiana will not preserve Plaintiff’s rights because the Indiana court must determine whether to apply California Song-Beverly Act to the matter in Indiana. However, this concern can be remedied by staying this matter while the Indiana case is pending and should the Indiana court decline to apply the Song-Beverly Act, then Plaintiff can move to lift the stay on this matter. Therefore, the forum selection clause is enforceable because Defendant has met its burden of proving that Plaintiff signed the forum selection clause and Plaintiff’s Song-Beverly Rights can be readily preserved.

Accordingly, Defendant Forest River, Inc.’s motion to stay the action is GRANTED. This matter is stayed during the pendency of the matter in Indiana courts. Defendant is to sign a stipulation to not oppose the application of California law in Indiana courts and should the Indiana courts decline to apply Plaintiff’s Song-Beverly Act rights in their jurisdiction, Plaintiff may move to lift the stay in this Court.