Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV03188, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV03188, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV03188 Hearing Date: November 21, 2024 Dept: C

JONES v. TIFFIN MOTORHOMES INC.

CASE NO.: 23NWCV03188

HEARING: 11/21/24

Defendants TIFFIN MOTORHOMES, INC and MIKE THOMPSON RV 2’s Motion to Stay Action Based on Inconvenient Forum is DENIED.

Opposing party to give notice.

No Reply filed as of November 18, 2024. Due by November 14, 2024. (CCP §1005(b).)

This lemon law action concerning the sale of a Tiffin Allegro Breeze vehicle to Plaintiffs JEWEL JONES and CLEMERSTINE JONES (collectively “Plaintiffs”) was filed against Defendants TIFFIN MOTORHOMES INC. (“Tiffin”); MIKE THOMPSON RV 2 (“Mike Thompson RV”); FREIGHTLINER CUSTOM CHASSIS CORPORATION, INC. (“Freightliner”); and Does 1 through 10 (collectively “Defendants”) on October 6, 2023.

On November 6, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Plaintiffs allege that “[o]n NOVEMBER 29, 2022, Plaintiffs acquired a 2022 TIFFIN ALLEGRO BREEZE…. [¶] The Vehicle was sold with TIFFIN MOTORHOMES INC.’s and FREGHLINER’s warranty and, to be free from defects in materials and workmanship. Defendant, by way of their warranties, promised Plaintiffs to make or provide repairs that were free of charges during the warranty period.” (FAC ¶¶16-17.) “Plaintiffs, from the time of the acquisition of the Vehicle to the present, the Vehicle has suffered extensive and ongoing problems….” (FAC ¶20.) “Plaintiffs Vehicle continued to experience mechanical issues. Plaintiffs were forced to return to the servicing dealership, multiple times with the same underlying issues.” (FAC ¶22.) “The servicing Dealerships, including… are TIFFIN MOTORHOMES, INC and FREIGHTLINER’s agents in the capacity as they perform warranty repairs on behalf of them. It is clear that Defendants is unable to fix, remedy, and/or repair the Vehicle to conform to the warranty. Their multiple repair attempts have proven willfully unsuccessful in resolving the issue.” (FAC ¶24.)

Plaintiffs’ FAC asserts the following causes of action:

(1) Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Breach of Express Warranty;

(2) Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Breach of Implied Warranty;

(3) Violation of Business and Professions Code §17200; and

(4) Negligent Repair

Tiffin and Mike Thompson RV now move to stay the action under CCP §410.30, arguing that the parties are bound to litigate their claims in Franklin County, Alabama under the forum selection clause contained in the express warranty, that this agreement is mandatory, and that the agreement requires application of Alabama law. Tiffin and Mike Thompson RV indicate that they will stipulate to “not object” to the application of California law (related to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act) in a Franklin County, Alabama court.

In Opposition, Plaintiffs argue: (1) the forum selection clause at issue violates public policy; (2) the State if Alabama does not provide statutory protections to purchasers of motor homes, RV and trailers, under its lemon law statute; and (3) Defendants’ offer to stipulate does not cure the problem.

“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.” (CCP §410.30.)

On November 29, 2022, Plaintiff purchased the Subject Vehicle. The Sales Contract had a Warranty Registration Form, which was signed by Plaintiffs and acknowledges that Plaintiffs agreed to the terms of Tiffin’s Limited Warranty, which states in relevant part: “PURCHASER AND TIFFIN AGREE THAT EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF ANY PROCEEDING HEREUNDER SHALL BE IN THE STATE COURT OF GENERAL JURISDICTION IN AND FOR FRANKLIN COUNTY, ALABAMA, OR IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DIVISION THAT INCLUDES FRANKLIN COUNTY, ALABAMA. PURCHASER AND TIFFIN AGREE TO SUBMIT THEMSELVES, IN ANY LEGAL ACTION OR PROCEEDING BETWEEN THEM RELATING TO THIS LIMITED WARRANTY OR OTHERWISE TO THE STATE OR FEDERAL COURT FOR FRANKLIN COUNTY, ALABAMA, AND CONSENT THAT ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE BROUGHT IN SUCH COURTS, AND HEREBY WAIVE ANY OBJECTION THAT EACH MAY NOW OR HEREAFTER HAVE TO THE VENUE OF ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING IN ANY SUCH COURT.” (Tyler Decl., Ex. B.)

A “mandatory [forum selection] clause will ordinarily be given effect without any analysis of convenience; the only question is whether enforcement of the clause would be unreasonable. On the other hand, when the clause merely provides for submission to jurisdiction and does not expressly mandate litigation exclusively in a particular forum, then the traditional forum non conveniens analysis applies.” (Intershop Communications A.G. v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 191, 196.) “[I]f 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… ‘Mere inconvenience or additional expense is not the test of unreasonableness…’ of a mandatory forum selection clause.” (Berg v. MTC Electronics Technologies (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 349, 358-359.)

“California favors contractual forum selection clauses so long as they are entered into freely and voluntarily, and their enforcement would not be unreasonable. [Citations Omitted.]” (Lathrop v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 808,165.) “Nonetheless, California Courts will refuse to defer to the selected forum if to do so would substantially diminish the rights of California residents in a way that violates our state’s public policy. The party opposing enforcement of a forum selection clause ordinarily bears the substantial burden of proving why it should not be enforced. That burden, however, is reversed when the claims at issue are based on unwaivable rights created by California statues. In that situation, 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. [Citations Omitted.]” (Id.)

Here, the plain language of the forum selection clause at issue dictates that all disputes involving warranty claims be filed in the State of Alabama, and requires Plaintiffs to waive their Song-Beverly warranty rights in violation of Cal. Civ. Code §1790.1, which is direct violation of public policy and, thus, void.

Moreover, as argued in Opposition, a stipulation to apply California law does not render an otherwise unenforceable forum selection cluse enforceable. (Id. at 169.)

The Motion is DENIED.