Judge Olivia Rosales, Case 22NWCV00145 2022-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 22NWCV00145, Date: 2022-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00145 Hearing Date: August 16, 2022 Dept: SEC

AQUINO v. THOR MOTOR COACH, INC., et al.

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00145

HEARING: 8/16/22 @ 9:30 AM

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

Defendants Thor Motor Coach, Inc. and Giant Inland Empire RV Center, Inc.’s motion to stay action pursuant to CCP § 410.30 based on ground of inconvenient forum is DENIED.

Opposing Parties to give NOTICE.

Defendants Thor Motor Coach, Inc. and Giant Inland Empire RV Center, Inc. (collectively, “Thor”) move to stay the action based on inconvenient forum pursuant to CCP § 410.30.

On March 3, 2022, Plaintiffs Leonel and Jessie Aguino filed the instant complaint, alleging that they purchased a motor home from Defendants on March 30, 2019. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to correct the defects in materials and/or workmanship that plagued the motorhome. The Complaint asserts a single cause of action for Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (CC § 1794).

CCP § 410.30(a) provides: “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.” The doctrine of forum non conveniens is an equitable doctrine in which the court has the discretionary power to decline the exercise the of jurisdiction it has over a transitory cause of action when it believes that the action may be more appropriately tried in another forum. (Stangvik v. Shiley, Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751.) The granting or denial of a motion for forum non conveniens lies within the court's substantial discretion. (Roman v. Liberty University, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 670, 682.)

Ordinarily the party opposing enforcement of a forum selection clause bears the burden of proving why it should not be enforced, however, "that burden is reversed when the claims at issue are based on unwaivable rights created by California statutes." (Verdugo v. Alliantgroup L.P. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 141, 147; see also America Online, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1, 11, applying this reversed burden of proof to claims under the CLRA because the CLRA prohibits waivers by consumers pursuant to CC § 1751.)

Unless Defendants can show Plaintiffs were given notice of, acknowledged, and then agreed to this forum selection and choice of law clause "freely and voluntarily" the clause is unenforceable. (America Online, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at 11-12 - a mandatory forum selection clause will not be enforced where it is not "procured freely and voluntarily".) "A forum selection clause within an adhesion contract will be enforced 'as long as the clause provided adequate notice to the [party] that he was agreeing to the jurisdiction cited in the contract.'" (Intershop Communications, AG v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 191, 201; see also Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Superior Court (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1019, 1026-1027.)

Here, Song-Beverly contains an anti-waiver provision. CC § 1790.1 provides, "Any waiver by the buyer of consumer goods of the provisions of this chapter, except as expressly provided in this chapter, shall be deemed contrary to public policy and shall be unenforceable and void." Therefore, the burden is on Thor to prove why its forum selection clause should be enforced.

Thor declares that in a typical transaction, a finance manager would review all warranty documents that accompany the motor home with the purchasing consumer, allowing a consumer to read the applicable warranties and have any questions answered; to confirm this review has been completed the consumer and finance manager would sign and date the Registration Form. (8/9/22 Bensiek Decl., ¶ 3.)

The Thor Motor Coach Limited Warranty contains a forum selection clause that provides, “exclusive jurisdiction for deciding legal disputes relating to alleged breach of warranty or representations of any nature rests in the courts within the state of manufacture, which is Indiana. (Stanley Decl., Ex. B, p. 10.) The Registration Form provides, “I understand that exclusive jurisdiction for deciding legal disputes relating to alleged breach of warranty or representations of any nature rests in the courts within the state of manufacture, which is Indiana.” (Id., Registration Form, p. B, notation above the signature line.)

The court finds that Thor failed to carry its burden of establishing that the Limited Warranty was procured freely and voluntarily. Both the Limited Warranty and Registration Form attached to the Stanley Declaration reflects the notation, “rev. date 03/01/18.” (Stanley Decl., Ex. B, p. 10, footnotes.)

However, the Registration Form that was signed by Plaintiffs does not contain the notation, “I understand that exclusive jurisdiction for deciding legal disputes relating to alleged breach of warranty or representations of any nature rests in the courts within the state of manufacture, which is Indiana.” (See 8/9/22 Bensiek Decl., Ex. A.) The Registration Form that the Plaintiffs signed was from a year prior, carrying the notation, “rev. date 08/01/17”. (Id., footnote.)

It is unclear if the 2017 version of the Limited Warranty contains the same forum selection clause. It is also unclear if the finance manager discussed the limited warranty with Plaintiffs. Plaintiff declares that no one discussed the warranty with Plaintiff. (Leonel Aquino Decl., ¶ 2.)

Accordingly, the court finds that Defendant failed to carry its burden. Motion is DENIED.