Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV25303, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25303    Hearing Date: March 2, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:             Defendants Jose Alberto Castro, erroneously named and sued as Jose Alberto Castro dba Lavanderia Rio Grande, and Cleotilde Ortiz, erroneously named and served as Cleotilda Ortiz dba Lavanderia Rio Grande

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Laundrylux Funding Services, LLC

Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The court denies Defendants’ request for judicial notice, filed on January 10, 2023, because the matters of which Defendants request the court take judicial notice are not relevant to any issues to be determined on this motion.  (Malek Media Group LLC v. AXQG Corp. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 817, 825 [“Any matter to be judicially noticed must be relevant to a material issue”].)

The court denies Defendants’ request for judicial notice, filed on February 21, 2023 in support of its reply, as an improper attempt to file new evidence in reply.  (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537.)

DISCUSSION

Defendants Jose Alberto Castro, erroneously named and served as Jose Alberto Castro dba Lavanderia Rio Grande, and Cleotilde Ortiz, erroneously named and served as Cleotilda Ortiz dba Lavanderia Rio Grande (“Defendants”) move the court for an order dismissing the Complaint filed by plaintiff Laundrylux Funding Services, LLC (“Plaintiff”) in this action pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

If a court “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, subd. (a).)  “‘Section 410.30 is a codification of the doctrine of forum non conveniens [citation], but the principles governing enforcement of a forum selection clause are not the same as those applicable to motions based on forum non conveniens.  [¶]  In California, “forum selection clauses are valid and may be given effect, in the court’s discretion and in the absence of a showing that enforcement of such a clause would be unreasonable.”  [Citation.]  [¶]  The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, and the factors involved in traditional forum non conveniens analysis do not control.  [Citation.]  “Instead, the forum selection clause is presumed valid and will be enforced unless the plaintiff shows that enforcement of the clause would be unreasonable under the circumstances of the case.”’”  (Korman v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 206, 213.)  “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.’”  (Quanta Computer, Inc. v. Japan Communications Inc. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 438, 445.)

Defendants move to dismiss this action on the ground that the Secured Promissory Note and Agreement (the “Agreement”) on which Plaintiff’s action is based includes a mandatory forum selection clause requiring the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of the State of New York.  The Agreement provides, in relevant part, the following:  “In any litigation with Holder, whether or not arising out of or relating to this Note: . . . (C) Maker and all Guarantors irrevocably submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of New York and of the United States having jurisdiction in any of the following counties within the State of New York: New York, Queens, Kings, Bronx, and/or Nassau . . . .  Maker and all Guarantors agree not to bring any action or other proceeding with respect to this Note or with respect to any of its obligations hereunder in any court other than the aforementioned courts unless such courts of the State of New York and of the United States determine that they do not have jurisdiction in the matter.”  (Mot., Ex. A, § 12.)  The Agreement defines Defendants to be the “Maker,” and Plaintiff to be the “Lender.”  (Mot., Ex. A, p. 1.) 

The court finds that the Agreement does not include a mandatory forum selection clause as to Plaintiff and therefore denies Defendants’ motion.

As set forth above, the language of the Agreement (1) requires the “Maker and all Guarantors [to] irrevocably submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of New York,” and (2) provides that only the “Maker and all Guarantors agree not to bring any action or other proceeding with respect to this Note or with respect to any of its obligations hereunder in any court other than the aforementioned courts….”  (Mot., Ex. A, § 12.)  Plaintiff is not defined to be either a maker or guarantor; instead, Plaintiff is expressly defined to be the “Lender” in the Agreement.  (Mot., Ex. A, p. 1.)  Although Defendants contend that the Agreement “is mandatory for both parties” because it requires the maker and guarantors to submit to courts in the State of New York “In any litigation with Holder,” the court disagrees.  While the Agreement expressly obligates the maker and guarantors to submit to the jurisdiction of New York courts and prevents them from bringing any action in any other court, it does not include any similar provision as to the lender or holder.  (Mot., Ex. A, § 12.)  Thus, Plaintiff was not required to file this action in New York pursuant to the forum selection clause.

The court notes that Defendants also argue that Plaintiff lacks the capacity to sue in California.  The court denies Defendants’ request that the court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on this ground because (1) lack of legal capacity to sue is not a ground for dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, and (2) Defendants did not state, in their notice of motion, that they were moving to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on the ground of lack of legal capacity to sue.  (Notice of Mot., p. 2:1-2 [Defendants move for an order of dismissal “based on forum non conveniens”]; Code Civ. Proc., § 410.30, subd. (a).)

ORDER

The court denies defendants Jose Alberto Castro, erroneously named and served as Jose Alberto Castro dba Lavanderia Rio Grande, and Cleotilde Ortiz, erroneously named and served as Cleotilda Ortiz dba Lavanderia Rio Grande’s Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens.

The court orders plaintiff Laundrylux Funding Services, LLC to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  March 2, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court