Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV07567, Date: 2023-11-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV07567    Hearing Date: November 16, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On April 5, 2023, Plaintiff MTI Logistics, Inc. filed this action against Defendants RoadOne Intermodal Logistics, Inc. and RoadOne LogisticSolutions, Inc.

On September 20, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to a contractual forum selection clause.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant’s request for judicial notice of the parties’ contract is granted.  The Complaint references the parties’ contract, so it is an appropriate matter for judicial notice.  (See Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 949, 956, fn. 6.)  Additionally, Plaintiff acknowledges the contract and its Dispute Resolution provision at paragraph 21 (Opposition at p. 2), thereby admitting its authenticity.  (Evid. Code, § 1414.)

DISCUSSION

“In California, the 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.”  (Berg v. MTC Electronics Technologies (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 349, 358 (Berg).)  “[A] motion based on a forum selection clause is a special type of forum non conveniens motion.  The factors that apply generally to a forum non conveniens motion do not control in a case involving a mandatory forum selection clause.”  (Ibid.)  Instead, “the test is simply whether application of the clause is unfair or unreasonable, and the clause is usually given effect.”  (Ibid.)

A.        There Is a Mandatory Forum Selection Clause.

On October 5, 2020, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a contract that contained a forum selection clause.  (RJN, Ex. 1.)  Specifically, “[a]ll such disagreements or disputes shall be submitted to any court of and in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts having subject matter jurisdiction and the PARTIES hereby agree to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”

Plaintiff does not dispute that this is a mandatory forum selection clause.  (Opposition at p. 2.)  Instead, Plaintiff argues that the forum selection clause is unreasonable.  (Id. pp. 2-4.)

B.        Plaintiff Has Not Shown That Application of the Forum Selection Clause Would be Unfair or Unreasonable.

Plaintiff argues that the work and services were performed in California.  (Opposition at p. 4.)  “Claims that the previously chosen forum is unfair or inconvenient are generally rejected.  [Citation.]  A court will usually honor a mandatory forum selection clause without extensive analysis of factors relating to convenience.  [Citation.]  ‘“Mere inconvenience or additional expense is not the test of unreasonableness . . .”’ of a mandatory forum selection clause.  [Citation.]”  (Berg, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at pp. 358-359.)

Plaintiff states only that “all the work and services were performed in California by a California business, without any involvement or activity in Massachusetts, Delaware, or any other location.  [¶]  Under the circumstances, it would be extremely unfair to require Plaintiff to file an action in Massachusetts, Delaware or another location when the events occurred in California, Plaintiff is a California business, Plaintiff did not do any business in Massachusetts, Delaware or other states relating to this transaction.  [¶]  Denying Plaintiff the use of California courts would be extremely unfair under the circumstances.”  (Opposition at p. 4; see Murat Decl.)

Plaintiff’s conclusory assertion of unfairness is insufficient to show that application of the forum selection clause is unfair or unreasonable.

CONCLUSION

The motion to dismiss or stay action is GRANTED.  This action is STAYED pending litigation in Massachusetts.

The Court sets a Status Conference Re: Massachusetts Litigation for 11/19/2024 at 8:30 AM.  Five court days before, the parties are to file a joint report on the status of the action in Massachusetts.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 16th day of November 2023