HERNANDEZ, JORGE VS. GOOMBA MUSIC INC

ase Number: 14N23559    Hearing Date: January 05, 2015    Dept: 77

Defendant Goomba Music, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Forum is GRANTED. CCP §§ 410.30 and 418.10.

“Code of Civil Procedure §§ 410.30 and 418.10 are the means by which a defendant may challenge a plaintiff’s selection of California as the forum for the litigation between them. Two substantive bodies of law are affected by this procedural vehicle; the traditional (or non-contractual) doctrine of forum non conveniens and the enforceability of contractual forum selection clauses.” Cal-State Business Products & Services, Inc. v. Ricoh (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1666, 1667.

Under the modern rule, a forum selection clause will be given effect unless it is unfair or unreasonable. California’s public policy favoring residents’ access to its courts is not thwarted when residents surrender this right voluntarily in the course of negotiating a contract. A forum selection clause will only be disregarded if it is the result of overreaching or the unfair use of unequal bargaining power or if the forum chosen by the parties would be a seriously inconvenient one for the trial of the action. There is no public policy which would compel denial of a forum selection clause in a contract which has been entered into freely and voluntarily by the parties who have negotiated at arms’ length. Thus, forum selection clauses may be given effect in the court’s discretion and in the absence of a showing that enforcement would be unreasonable.

The conclusory term “unreasonable” has been interpreted as meaning that the party opposing the forum selection clause must establish that the forum selected would be unavailable or unable to accomplish substantial justice. A further measure of reasonableness was added by the court in Furda v. Superior Court (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 418, which added a requirement that the choice of forum have some rational basis in light of the facts underlying the transaction. On the other hand, neither inconvenience nor additional expense in litigating in the selected forum is part of the test of unreasonableness. The fact the forum selection clause is contained in a contract of adhesion and was not the subject of bargaining does not defeat enforcement as a matter of law, where there is no evidence of unfair use of superior power to impose the contract upon the other party and where the covenant is within the reasonable expectations of the party against whom it is being enforced. That a business with transactions in multiple jurisdictions might insist on one forum in all its contracts is not of itself objectionable. Cal-State Business Products & Services, Inc. v. Ricoh, 12 Cal.App.4th 1666.

This unopposed motion is granted. The forum selection clause supports this matter being heard in Michigan. Moreover, the forum selection clause is not unfair and/or unreasonable. Further, no grounds are presented which would warrant finding that a Michigan court would be unavailable or unable to accomplish substantial justice. Based on the foregoing, the court does not find that the forum selection clause to be unfair and/or unreasonable. As such, the motion to dismiss is hereby granted as to this defendant.

The case is set for trial on July 21, 2015, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 77.
Moving party to give notice.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Copy the code below to your web site.
x 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *