Cal. Codes » Business and Professions Code / DIVISION 8. SPECIAL BUSINESS REGULATIONS / CHAPTER 5.5. Franchise Relations / ARTICLE 8. Venue of Disputes
California Codes

Cal. Business and Professions Code § 20040.5 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A provision in a franchise agreement restricting venue to a forum outside this state is void with respect to any claim arising under or relating to a franchise agreement involving a franchise business operating within this state.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2001–2024 · leading case: Fleming v. Matco Tools Corp., 384 F. Supp. 3d 1124 (N.D. Cal. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fleming v. Matco Tools Corp., 384 F. Supp. 3d 1124 (N.D. Cal. 2019). · cites it 3× “The statute makes void any "provision in a franchise agreement restricting venue to a forum outside this state .”
Bolter v. Superior Court, 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 888 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). “, Business and Professions Code section 20040.”
Big O Tires, LLC v. Felix Bros., Inc., 724 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (D. Colo. 2010). “Defendants believe that this outcome is commanded by California Business and Professions Code § 20040.”
Roberts v. C.R. England, Inc., 827 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2011). “2000), the Ninth Circuit concluded that California Business and Professions Code section 20040.”
Aguilera v. Matco Tools Corp. (S.D. Cal. 2020). “) 1 California Business and Professions Code § 20040.”
Aguilera v. Matco Tools Corp. (S.D. Cal. 2020). “) 28 California Business and Professions Code § 20040.”
GlobalCFO v. Venkataramanappa CA1/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024). “) True, Business and Professions Code section 20040.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.