Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01462, Date: 2023-11-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01462    Hearing Date: November 28, 2023    Dept: C

Michael V. Severo vs Forest River, Inc., et al.

Case No. 23NWCV01462

Hearing Date: 11/28/23 at 9:30am

#6

Tentative Order

Defendant Forest River, Inc.’s Motion to Stay is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

Background

On July 16, 2021, plaintiff purchased a 2021 Forest River 33DS, bearing vehicle identification number 1F66F5DN2M0A01249 (“the Subject Vehicle”), from MIKE THOMPSON RV in Santa Fe Springs, California. (Evans Decl., Ex. A, Retail Installment Sale Contract.)

The Sales Contract had a Warranty Registration, which stated in relevant part: “EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION FOR DECIDING LEGAL DISPUTES RELATING TO THIS LIMITED WARRANTY, AN ALLEGED BREACH OF WARRANTY, BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, OR REPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND MUST BE FILED IN THE COURTS WITHIN THE STATE OF INDIANA.” (Capitalization and bold original.) (Gonzales Decl., p. 5 of Exhibit C.)

Defendants now seek an order to stay the proceedings to refile the action in Indiana.

As a preliminary matter, Defendant Mike Thompson Recreational Vehicles has joined this instant motion.

Legal Standard 

Forum non conveniens is “an equitable doctrine invoking the discretionary power of a court to decline the exercise of jurisdiction it has over a transitory cause of action when it believes that the action may be more appropriately and justly tried elsewhere.” (Stangvik v. Shiley, Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751.) “In California, the procedure for enforcing a forum selection clause is a motion to stay or dismiss for forum non conveniens pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 410.30 and 418.10 [citation], but a motion based on a forum selection clause is a special type of forum non conveniens motion.”  (Berg v. MTC Electronics Technologies¿(1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 349, 358.) 

Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30(a) states, “[w]hen 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 of Civil Procedure section 418.10(a)(2) states, “[a] defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: ¶ [t]o stay or dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum.” 

“‘California favors contractual¿forum¿selection¿clauses¿so long as they are entered into freely and voluntarily . . .’”  (Verdugo v. Alliantgroup, L.P.¿(2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 141, 146.)  “California courts routinely enforce forum selection clauses¿even where the chosen forum is far from the plaintiff's residence.”  (Net2Phone, Inc. v. Superior Court¿(2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 583, 588.)  “California law is ‘in accord with the modern trend which favors enforceability of such [mandatory] forum selection clauses.  [Citations.]”  (Quanta Computer Inc. v. Japan Communications Inc.¿(2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 438, 444.)  “‘The factors that apply generally to a forum non conveniens motion do not control in a case involving a mandatory forum selection clause.  [Citations.]  Where there is a mandatory forum selection 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.  [Citation.]  A court will usually honor a mandatory forum selection clause without extensive analysis of factors relating to convenience.  [Citation.]’  [Citation.]”  (Id. at 445.) 

“In determining whether to grant a motion based on forum non conveniens, a court must first determine whether the alternate forum is a ‘suitable’ place for trial.  If it is, the next step is to consider the private interests of the litigants and the interests of the public in retaining the action for trial in California. (Id.)  “On a motion for forum non conveniens, the defendant, as the moving party, bears the burden of proof.  The granting or denial of such a motion is within the trial court’s discretion, and substantial deference is accorded its determination in this regard.”  (Id.)  

As the moving party, defendants have the burden to prove that: (1) a suitable alternative forum exists; and (2) the balance of private and public interest factors make it just to transfer the litigation. (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at 751.) A court has considerable discretion in its decision to stay or dismiss a California action. (Simmons v. Superior Court (1950) 96 Cal.App.2d 119.) Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, an action by a California resident may be stayed, but not dismissed absent exceptional circumstances. (Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1463.) 

Discussion 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff sued Defendants in Los Angeles Superior Court for damages under Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Defendant asserts that during the purchase of the subject motorhome Plaintiff signed Forest River, Inc.’s Customer Delivery and Warranty Registration Form which contains a forum selection clause in bolded and capitalized lettering. (Evan Decl., Ex. B.)

          Whether Plaintiff Freely and Voluntarily Agreed to the Forum Clause

Defendant claims Forest River's Warranty "was provided" to Plaintiff at the time of sale because he signed a separate document, the Warranty Registration Form. (Dells. Mtn. at p. 8.) The Warranty Registration Form is a one-page document, separate and apart from the multi-paged Warranty itself. (Evans Dec., Ex. B.) Plaintiff argues the Warranty Registration Form does not contain the forum selection clause. (Evans Dec., Ex. B.) Plaintiff states he did not see the clause in the Warranty itself. Plaintiff argues the fact that he signed the Warranty Registration Form purporting to have received the Warranty itself is not legally conclusive proof that Plaintiff actually did see the Warranty or the clause, it only creates a rebuttable presumption. (See, Civil Code § 2984.3.)

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff signed a separate page which contains the forum selection clause. 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.

After determining that Plaintiff freely and voluntarily agreed to the forum selection clause, the Court now turns to whether Indiana is a suitable form.

Suitable Forum 

“In determining whether to grant a motion based on forum non conveniens, a court must first determine whether the alternate forum is a ‘suitable’ place for trial.” (Investors Equity Life Holding Co. v. Schmidt (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1375 [quoting Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751] (emphasis in original).) “Key to assessing whether an alternative forum would be suitable is the determination that the forum would be able to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant, and that plaintiff’s claim would not be barred by its statute of limitations.” (Id. at 1376.) “It is well settled under California law that the moving parties satisfy their burden on the threshold suitability issue by stipulating to submit to the jurisdiction of the alternative forum and to waive any applicable statute of limitations.” (Hahn v. Diaz-Barba¿(2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1190.) 

Defendant argues that Indiana is a suitable forum because of the written agreement, as well as the fact that they are willing to agree that the Indiana court adjudicate under the Song-Beverly applicable laws.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that a suitable alternative forum does not exist because Plaintiff’s choice of forum should not be disturbed and that Indiana law does not cover RVs or Motorhomes and thus would not be covered appropriately.

The Court finds that Defendant has satisfied its burden on the threshold suitably issues by agreeing to adjudicate under the relevant Song-Beverly laws.  Since Defendants will use Song-Beverly it will not strip Plaintiffs of their legal rights in the state of California. Should the Indiana court decline to apply the Song-Beverly Act, then Plaintiff can move to lift the stay on this matter.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant has satisfied its burden on the threshold suitably issue. The Court thus turns to the balance of public and private interests. 

Public & Private Interests 

If the alternate forum is a suitable forum, “the next step is to consider the private interests of the litigants and the interests of the public in retaining the action for trial in California.” (Investors Equity Life Holding Co., supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at 1375 [quoting Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at 751].) “The private interest factors are those that make trial and the enforceability of the ensuing judgment expeditious and relatively inexpensive, such as the ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses.” (Id.) “The public interest factors include avoidance of overburdening local courts with congested calendars, protecting the interests of potential jurors so that they are not called upon to decide cases in which the local community has little concern, and weighing the competing interests of California and the alternative jurisdiction in the litigation.” (Id.) While the typical inquiry is whether California is a “seriously inconvenient” forum, where plaintiff is a non-resident, it is error for the trial court to impose the “seriously inconvenient” burden on defendant. (Fox Factory, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 197, 207.) Instead, “it is for the superior court to weigh and flexibly apply the private and public interests at stake. [Citation.]” (Id.)  

“Case law adheres to the principle that the plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to great weight even though the plaintiff is a nonresident. [Citation.] “‘[U]nless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.' [Citations.]” [Citation.]” (Hansen v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.¿(1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 753, 760.) 

“If a corporation is the defendant, the state of its incorporation and the place where its principal place of business is located is presumptively a convenient forum. [Citation.]” (Stangvik v. Shiley Inc.¿(1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 755.) 

Here, the Court notes that a search of the Indiana Public Business Search found that the Defendant Forest River, Inc. is incorporated in Indiana, therefore Indiana is presumptively the convenient forum.

Accordingly, the State of Indiana is a convenient forum.  Defendant’s Motion to Stay is GRANTED. 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.