Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 22PSCV01434 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV01434, Date: 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV01434 Hearing Date: March 21, 2023 Dept: G

Defendant Echo Global Logistics’ Motion to Stay or Dismiss Action

Respondent: Plaintiff UPS Line Inc.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Echo Global Logistics’ Motion to Stay or Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff UPS Line Inc.’s Complaint against Defendant Echo Global Logistics is hereby DISMISSED.

BACKGROUND

This is a contractual fraud action. In 2017, Plaintiff UPS Line Inc. entered into a business relationship with Defendant Echo Global Logistics in which Plaintiff was a carrier line and Defendant was a freight broker. In August 2021, Plaintiff alleges Defendant concealed the actual value of the freight which resulted in Plaintiff purchasing insufficient insurance coverage and providing Defendant with a lower price for shipping. As a result, Plaintiff obtained a standard insurance policy for $100,000 and arranged for Shaoxian Zhang (Zhang), operating through Pinxin Transportation Inc. (Pinxin Transportation), to pick-up the shipment. On September 14, Zhang’s truck was burglarized and approximately $195,000 worth of goods were stolen. In response, Plaintiff alleges Defendant continued to utilize Plaintiff’s services but refused to make payment as a means of collecting on this alleged debt.

On October 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant, Zhang, Pinxin Transportation, and Does 1-20, alleging the following causes of action: (1) fraud, (2) negligence, (3) fraudulent inducement, (4) breach of contract, and (5) unfair business practices.

On January 23, 2023, Defendant filed the present motion. A hearing on the motion, case management conference, and OSC Re: Failure to File Proof of Service is set for March 21, 2023.

ANALYSIS

Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s action on the grounds of forum non conveniens. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS Defendant’s motion.

Legal Standard

“[F]orum 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.” (Smith, Valentino & Smith, Inc. v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 491, 496.) “[T]he procedure for enforcing a forum selection clause is a motion to stay or dismiss for forum non conveniens pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 410.30 and 418.10 [Citation], but a motion based on a forum selection clause is a special type of forum non conveniens motion.” (Berg v. MTC Electronics Technologies (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 349, 358.) “The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, and the factors involved in traditional forum non conveniens analysis do not control.” (Trident Labs, Inc. v. Merrill Lynch Commercial Finance Corp. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 147, 154.) Instead, “if 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.” (Id., at p. 358.) “Such clauses provide a degree of certainty, both for businesses and their customers, that contractual disputes will be resolved in a particular forum. [Citation] California courts routinely enforce forum selection clauses even where the chosen forum is far from the plaintiff’s residence.” (Net2Phone, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 583, 588.)

Discussion

In this case, Defendant seeks to enforce a mandatory forum selection clause in a 2017 Broker-Carrier Agreement between Defendant and Plaintiff that states as follows:

“CHOICE OF LAW. This Agreement shall be governed in all respects by the laws of the State of Illinois, without regard to conflict of law provisions, except to the extent federal transportation law applies. Any claim or dispute you may have against Broker must be resolved by a court located in Cook County, Illinois. The Parties agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of courts located within Cook County, Illinois for the purposes of litigating all such claims or disputes.” (Watts Decl., Ex. A, ¶ 21.)

In response, Plaintiff’s opposition disputes the completeness, accuracy, and authenticity of the alleged 2017 Broker-Carrier Agreement. (Opposition, p. 2) Plaintiff also claims that the signature on Plaintiff’s behalf is by a “dispatcher” who is not an officer of Plaintiff with the authority to enter into agreements. (Opposition, p. 2.) However, while Defendant provided evidence of this agreement with the sworn declaration of Erica Watts, Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence in opposition.

Plaintiff also seems to contend the forum selection clause diminishes Plaintiff’s right to a jury trial pursuant to California law. (Opposition, p. 3:15-4:20.) While Plaintiff cites the relevant California law establishing the right to a jury trial in civil cases, Plaintiff does not explain how this right is diminished or waived by the forum selection clause. Moreover, article I, section 13 of the Illinois Constitution also guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil actions that existed in common law. (Bowman v. American River Transp. Co. (Ill. 2005) 838 N.E.2d 949, 960.) Thus, the court finds Plaintiff failed to carry its burden of establishing the mandatory forum selection cause is unreasonable or unfair.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Defendant’s motion.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to Dismiss or Stay is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s action is hereby DISMISSED as to Defendant Echo Global Logistics.