Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV01949, Date: 2023-12-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV01949, Date: 2023-12-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV01949 Hearing Date: December 19, 2023 Dept: C

ANA HERNANDEZ vs THOR MOTOR COACH INC., et al.

Case No. 23NWCV01949

Hearing Date: 12/19/23 at 9:30 a.m.

Tentative Order

Defendant Thor Motor Coach, Inc.’s Motion to Stay is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

Background

This is a lemon law case.

On July 16, 2022, Plaintiff Ana Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) purchased a 2022 Thor Ace 30.3 recreational vehicle (“the Subject Vehicle”) from Defendant Giant Inland Empire RV Center, Inc. (“Giant RV”) in Downey, California. (Bensiek Decl., Ex. A, Retail Installment Sale Contract.) On June 26, 2023, Plaintiff sued Giant RV and Defendant Thor Motor Coach Inc. (“Thor”) under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act alleging Defendants failed to conform the Subject Vehicle to the factory warranty in a reasonable amount of time.

Thor now seeks an order to stay the proceedings based on forum non conveniens to allow Plaintiff to refile the action in the state of manufacture, which is Indiana. Giant RV joins in the motion.

Plaintiff filed an untimely Opposition on December 14, 2023. Defendants filed a Reply on December 18, 2023.

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

Defendants argue that a stay is warranted because Plaintiff signed the Thor Motor Coach Product Warranty Registration Form which contains a forum selection clause in bolded and capitalized lettering:

“EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION FOR DECIDING LEGAL DISPUTES RELATING TO ALLEGED BREACH OF WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATIONS OF ANY KIND MUST BE FILED IN THE COURTS WITHIN THE STATE OF MANUFACTURE, WHICH IS INDIANA.” (Capitalization and bold original.) (Bensiek Decl., Exhibit B.)

Whether Plaintiff Freely and Voluntarily Agreed to the Forum Clause

Defendants argue the Thor Motor Coach Warranty "was provided" to Plaintiff at the time of sale because she signed a separate document, the Warranty Registration Form. (Mtn. at p. 8.) The Court finds that Plaintiff signed Warranty Registration Form which contains the forum selection clause and thereby indicated agreement with the 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.)

Defendants argue 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 Plaintiff’s claims under the Song-Beverly Act.

The Court finds that Defendants have satisfied their burden on the threshold suitably issue by agreeing to adjudicate under the Song-Beverly Act. Should the Indiana court decline to apply the Song-Beverly Act, then Plaintiff can move to lift the stay on this matter.

Having found that Defendants have satisfied their 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.)

In this case, Indiana is presumptively a convenient forum because Thor is incorporated in Indiana.

Defendant’s Motion to Stay is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to sign a stipulation to not oppose the application of California law in Indiana courts. 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.