Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2023-00028712-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-03-15 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 14, 2024

03/15/2024  01:30:00 PM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00028712-CU-BC-CTL OELAND VS JAYCO INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Order to Stay Proceedings, 11/22/2023

The motion to stay based on ground of inconvenient forum filed by defendant Jayco, and joined by defendant La Mesa R.V. Center, is DENIED.

A mandatory forum selection clause – such as the one at issue here – is generally given effect unless enforcement would be unreasonable or unfair, and the party opposing enforcement of the clause ordinarily bears the burden of proving why it should not be enforced. Handoush v. Lease Finance Group, LLC (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 729, 734. The burden, however, is reversed when the forum selection clause impacts a party's substantive rights under California law. Id. at 734-35. 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. Verdugo v. Alliantgroup, L.P. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 141, 147. '[A] defendant can meet its burden only by showing the foreign forum provides the same or greater rights than California, or the foreign forum will apply California law on the claims at issue.' Id. at 157.

In this case, it is undisputed that plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial for their claims based on the Song-Beverly Act. It is further undisputed that the 'ENTEGRA MOTORHOME (gas models plus Reatta) LIMITED WARRANTY' is a predispute agreement, which contains the following forum selection clause: 'EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION FOR DECIDING LEGAL DSIPUTES RELATING TO AN ALLEGED BREACH OF WARRANTY OR ANY REPRESENTATIONS OF ANY NATURE, MUST BE FILED IN THE COURTS WITHIN THE STATE OF MANUFACTURE, WHICH IS INDIANA....ALL CLAIMS, CONTROVERSIES AND CAUSES OF ACTION ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS LIMITED WARRANTY, SHALL BE GOVERNED BYTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, INCLUDING ITS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO ANY CONFLICT OF LAW RULE THAT WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICATION OF THE LAWS OF A DIFFERENT JURISDICTION.

...

ALL ACTIONS OF ANY KIND RELATING TO THE MOTORHOME SHALL BE DECIDED BY A JUDGE RATHER THAN A JURY.' (Peffley Decl., Ex. C at p. 3.) The court finds that the forum selection clause has the potential to contravene the antiwaiver provision in Civil Code section 1790.1 – which is designed to protect California consumers – and California's Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3054079  57 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  OELAND VS JAYCO INC [IMAGED]  37-2023-00028712-CU-BC-CTL fundamental public policy protecting the right to a jury trial. See Rheinhart v. Nissan North America, Inc.

(2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 1016, 1034; see also Grafton Partners v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal.4th 944, 951. If enforced, the forum selection clause would require plaintiffs to litigate their Song-Beverly Act claims in Indiana pursuant to Indiana law and waive their rights to a jury trial. See Verdugo, 237 Cal.App.4th at 151 (holding that forum selection clause designating Texas as the litigation forum had potential to contravene antiwaiver statute in Labor Code); see also Handoush, 41 Cal.App.5th at 736 (finding that forum selection clause designating New York as the litigation forum and waiving right to jury trial had potential to contravene prohibition against predipsute jury waivers). Thus, Jayco bears the burden of showing that litigation in Indiana will not in any way dimmish plaintiffs' rights under California law.

In an attempt to meet this burden, Jayco has offered to stipulate that (1) that the Song-Beverly Act will apply to plaintiffs' claims as pled in its complaint; (2) that defendants will not oppose a request that the Indiana court utilize the Song-Beverly Act to adjudicate those allegations if permitted to go forward; and (3) that the parties' rights pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631(a) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 38 will not be disturbed should this matter be transferred to Indiana or Federal Court.

(Gonzalez Decl., ¶ 4; Robertson Decl., ¶ 3.) The court finds that the proposed stipulation is insufficient.

While Verdugo suggested in dicta that a stipulation to apply California law may be effective, Jayco has not cited any Indiana authority holding that an Indiana court would enforce Jayco's proposed stipulation under the facts present here. Accordingly, Jayco has failed to meet its burden of establishing that litigating in Indiana will not diminish in any way plaintiffs' unwaivable statutory rights under California law.

See Verdugo, 237 Cal.App.4th at 157.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3054079  57