Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV00901, Date: 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV00901    Hearing Date: April 20, 2023    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿ 

¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 April 20, 2023¿¿ 

¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                   22TRCV00901

¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Benjamin R. Murti; and Ashika Devi v. Thor Motor Coach, et al.                 .¿¿¿ ¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                Defendants, THOR Motor Coach, Inc., erroneously sued as “THOR Motor Coach” and Giant Inland Empire RV Center, Inc. dba Giant RV Colton erroneously sued as “Giant RV Colton”

¿¿ 

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiffs, Benjamin Murti and Ashika Devi

¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                       None Set.   

¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Motion to Stay Action on Grounds of Inconvenient Forum

¿ 

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) DENIED

            On March 10, 2023, this Court continued the hearing on the defense motion to stay or the representation by defense counsel that a “more robust” showing could be made addressing the Court’s concerns.

            In Defendants’ supplemental briefing, they provide a proposed Indiana Declaratory Relief Action Complaint to be filed immediately upon Stay of the current action. (Declaration of James Robertson, attached Exhibit A.) Defendants note that this Declaratory Relief Action – which tracks with the stipulations made by Defendants regarding the application of California substantive statutory law to Plaintiffs’ claims – allows for certainty in confirming that Plaintiffs’ substantive rights under California law will not be diminished when they refile this action pursuant to the enforceable mandatory Warranty Forum Selection Clause. (Declaration of James Robertson, paragraph 6.)

            Defendants note that by stipulating that the parties’ rights under the Song-Beverly Act and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act will not be disturbed should the matter be transferred to Indiana AND by initiating a Declaratory Relief action to confirm the same, Defendants have “eliminated any doubt” and “eliminated any uncertainty” about Plaintiffs’ rights thereunder. Further, Defendants argue that unlike the defendant in Verdugo, Defendants here are not preserving any argument to present to an Indiana court that Indiana law should provide anything other than what has been established in the anticipated Declaratory Relief action. As such, Defendants submit that Plaintiffs’ unwaivable rights will not be diminished by enforcement of the mandatory forum selection clause.

            In opposition, Plaintiffs first argue that that Defendants’ proposed Indiana declaratory relief complaint is invalid as a matter of Indiana law. Plaintiffs claim that according to information posted on the official website of the Indiana State Government, the commercial court system allows business and commercial disputes to be resolved with expertise, technology, and efficiency. However, Plaintiffs contend that under Commercial Court Rules, rule 4, cases eligible for assignment to the commercial court docket commence in the court with the filing of a “notice,” rather than a complaint. Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ proposed complaint will likely be rejected by the Indiana commercial court on both form and substance grounds, and that such courts lack jurisdiction to hear consumer rather than commercial disputes.

Plaintiffs also argue that although Defendants claim stipulations like theirs have “been provided [and never refused] in dozens of cases in the last four years refiled in Indiana in accordance with the operative Warranty Forum Selection Clauses,” Defendants have not cited a single specific case to support their claim, whether published or unpublished. (See Robertson  Decl., ¶ 6.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have failed to sever all the substantively unconscionable portions of the warranty identified in the Court’s tentative ruling, including: giving up the right to a refund or replacement remedy; foregoing the right to pursue a civil penalty; promising to give notice of a breach of warranty in a shortened time period; requiring delivery of the motor home to Indiana; and waiving the four-year statute of limitations; and footing the bill for transportation and lodging in Indiana.

Lastly, Plaintiff contends that David Pallone’s declaration fails to establish Plaintiffs freely and voluntarily agreed to the provisions in the warranty that violated their rights under California law and policy.

The Court finds that the “more robust” offer is not sufficient to overcome the concerns the Court previously expressed.  Defendants’ Motion to Stay Based on Grounds of Inconvenient Forum is DENIED.   The Court by this ruling does not bar Defendants from filing any notice or complaint in Indiana, but the California-filed case will proceed in California.  The Court will conduct a CMC and discuss possible trial setting at the April 20 hearing.

¿¿