Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV01077, Date: 2023-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01077, Date: 2023-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01077 Hearing Date: March 13, 2024 Dept: C

ALICE J. COLEMAN, ET AL. v. THOR MOTOR COACH INC., ET AL.

CASE NO.: 23NWCV01077

HEARING: 3/13/24 @ 9:30 AM

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Thor Motor Coach, Inc.’s motion to stay action based on Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30 is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Background

This is a Song-Beverly action. Plaintiffs Alicia J. Coleman and Jason E. Coleman sue Thor Motor Coach, Inc.; Lippert Components, Inc.; Mike Thompson’s Recreational Vehicles, Colton, Inc.; and Ford Motor Company, Inc. Plaintiffs allege breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, and negligent repair.

The other defendants filed a joinder to this motion.

Legal Standard

When a court upon motion of a party or 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. (Code Civ. Proc., §410.30.)

Motion to Stay

Here, defendant Thor Motor Coach, Inc. asserts that the plaintiffs are bound by a mandatory forum selection clause that states the following: “exclusive jurisdiction for deciding legal disputes relating to alleged breach of express warranty and implied warranties that arise by operation of law as well as those relating to representations of any nature must be filed in the courts within the state of manufacture, which is Indiana.” (Decl. Alfsen ¶ 3, Ex. B; Decl. Stanley ¶ 3, Ex. B.) In opposition, plaintiffs assert that Thor Motor Coach, Inc. was not a signatory to the agreement and thus, the forum selection clause is unenforceable.

Non-parties to contracts containing forum-selection clauses lack standing to enforce them, with exceptions, including those who were third party beneficiaries, those who had a close relationship to the contractual transaction and participated in the transaction, those who had an intertwining business relationship with the signatory, or those who were the alter ego of the signatory. (Berclain Amer. Latina v. Baan Co. (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 401, 408.) The document containing the forum selection clause is titled, “Thor Motor Coach Product Warranty Registration Form.” (Decl. Alfsen ¶ 3, Ex. B; Decl. Stanley ¶ 3, Ex. B.) Based on this, the Court finds that Defendant had a close relationship to the contractual transaction. Thus, Thor Motor Coach, Inc. has standing and the forum selection clause is enforceable on that ground.

The modern trend is to enforce mandatory forum selection clauses unless they are unfair or unreasonable. (Berg v. Mtc Electronics Techs. Co. (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 349, 358.) The factors that apply generally to a forum non conveniens motion do not control in a case involving a mandatory forum selection clause. (Ibid.)

The law applicable to forum-selection clauses is summarized in an opinion as follows:

Although California has a policy favoring access to its courts by its resident plaintiffs, our Supreme Court has concluded that policy is satisfied where a plaintiff freely and voluntarily negotiates away his or her right to a California forum….

….

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.)

Plaintiff argues the following: (1) Plaintiff’s substantive rights under the Song-Beverly Act will be extinguished if the court grants defendant’s motion to stay; (2) Plaintiff’s substantive right to a jury trial will be extinguished; and (3) Plaintiff’s Business and Professions Code section 17200 claims and negligent repair claims against defendant Mike Thompson cannot be preserved in the state of Indiana.

The state of Indiana has a choice of law clause, which would apply in this case. It states the following: “If a transaction bears a reasonable relation to Indiana and also to another state or nation, the parties may agree that the law either of Indiana or of the other state or nation shall govern their rights and duties.” (IN Code § 26-2-2-301 (2022).) Defendant has agreed to apply California law in the state of Indiana. (Decl. Roberson, ¶ 3.)

Based on the above, the Court GRANTS the stay.