Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 24STCV11900, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV11900    Hearing Date: October 31, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On May 10, 2024, Plaintiff Prudent Security Solutions Inc. filed this action against Defendant NJB Protection LLC, and on May 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”).

On September 16, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on a forum selection clause.

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.        Defendant Has Shown the Existence of a Mandatory Forum Selection Clause.

On October 20, 2022, the parties entered into a subcontract agreement.  (FAC, Ex. A.)  The contract contains a forum selection clause: “The parties hereto hereby consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of any state or federal court located within the County of Westchester, State of New York and irrevocably agree that all actions or proceedings arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the other related documents shall be litigated in such courts.  Each of the parties hereto accepts for itself and in connection with its properties, generally and unconditionally, the nonexclusive jurisdiction of the aforesaid courts and waive any defense of forum non conveniens, and irrevocably agree to be bound by any judgment rendered thereby in connection with this Agreement.”  (FAC, Ex. A, § 8.3.)

This clearly identifies “any state or federal court located within the County of Westchester, State of New York” as the exclusive forum for actions arising from the contract.

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

Plaintiff argues that “New York is not a reasonable forum because it will not accomplish substantial justice if the key material witnesses are unable to attend,” and this forum “is inequitable and detrimental to the interests of all parties involved.”  (Opposition at p. 3.)

“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 has not shown that application of the forum selection clause is unfair or unreasonable.

CONCLUSION

The motion to dismiss is GRANTED.  This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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 31st day of October 2024