Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01881, Date: 2024-03-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23NWCV01881 Hearing Date: March 20, 2024 Dept: C
RANDALL BRUCE, ET AL. v. FOREST RIVER, INC.
CASE NO.: 23NWCV01881
HEARING: 3/20/24 @ 9:30 AM
#5
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant Forest River’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 Randall Bruce and Jean Eiselein sue Forest River, Inc., alleging
violation of the “Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act” due to alleged defects of
the 2022 Forest River recreational vehicle they purchased from Mike Thompson
Recreational Vehicles in Santa Fe Springs, California.
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 asserts that the plaintiffs are
bound by a mandatory forum selection clause that states the following:
“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.” (Decl. Olson ¶ 4, Ex. C.) In opposition, plaintiffs assert that they
did not freely and voluntarily agree to the forum selection clause and that the
clause is unconscionable.
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…No satisfying reason of public policy has been suggested why
enforcement should be denied a forum selection clause appearing in a contract
entered into freely and voluntarily by parties who have negotiated at arm’s
length….
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.)
However, the burden is “reversed when the claims at issue are based on
unwaivable rights created by California statutes [in which case] the party
seeking to enforce the forum selection clause bears the burden to show
litigating the claims in the contractually designated forum ‘will not diminish
in any way the substantive rights afforded ... under California law.’ (Handoush
v. LeaseFinanceGroup, LLC (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 729, 734.)
Here, unwaivable rights are not at issue. Defendant states that it
agrees to apply California law in the state of Indiana. (Decl. Gonzalez, ¶ 4.) Further, 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).) Thus, Plaintiffs would not waive their rights.
Hence, Plaintiff has the burden to defeat application of a forum
selection clause.
Plaintiffs have not argued that enforcement of
the clause would be unreasonable or
unfair. Thus, Plaintiffs have not met their burden.
Based on the above, the Court GRANTS the stay.