Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 California opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2023 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cal-State Business Products & Services, Inc. v. Ricohgreen2 sentences2023(Quanta Computer Inc. v. Japan Communications Inc. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 438, 444 (Quanta).) Since, without such a clause, “neither party possesses a right to any particular forum,” a court’s “selection of one [forum] over the other requires the weighing of a gamut of factors of public and private convenience, not to mention the strong interest of a plaintiff’s domicile in providing the plaintiff access to its courts.” (Cal-State Business Products & Services, Inc. v. Ricoh (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1666, 1683 (Cal-State); see Berg, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 359 [where “a clause merely provides f 2017“Clauses that grant jurisdiction to a particular forum without expressly making that forum the mandatory situs for resolution of disputes are considered permissive only.” (Berg, at p. 359-360 [advance consent precludes objecting to the designated forum “on the ground that the court lacks personal jurisdiction,” but “does not mean that the same subject matter cannot be litigated in any other court”].) Under a permissive clause, the traditional forum non conveniens factors apply to determine the proper forum (Animal Film, at p. 471), which “requires . . . weighing . . . a gamut of factors of pub | 2 | 4 |
Berg v. MTC Electronics Technologies Co.green2 sentences2023(Quanta Computer Inc. v. Japan Communications Inc. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 438, 444 (Quanta).) Since, without such a clause, “neither party possesses a right to any particular forum,” a court’s “selection of one [forum] over the other requires the weighing of a gamut of factors of public and private convenience, not to mention the strong interest of a plaintiff’s domicile in providing the plaintiff access to its courts.” (Cal-State Business Products & Services, Inc. v. Ricoh (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1666, 1683 (Cal-State); see Berg, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 359 [where “a clause merely provides f 2023(Quanta Computer Inc. v. Japan Communications Inc. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 438, 444 (Quanta).) Since, without such a clause, “neither party possesses a right to any particular forum,” a court’s “selection of one [forum] over the other requires the weighing of a gamut of factors of public and private convenience, not to mention the strong interest of a plaintiff’s domicile in providing the plaintiff access to its courts.” (Cal-State Business Products & Services, Inc. v. Ricoh (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1666, 1683 (Cal-State); see Berg, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 359 [where “a clause merely provides f | 1 | 4 |
INTERSHOP COMMUNICATIONS, AG v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2022Claims that the previously chosen forum is unfair or inconvenient are generally rejected.” (See Berg v. MTC Electronics Technologies Co. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 349 , 358–359.) “Under a traditional forum non conveniens analysis,” that is, one that does not involve a mandatory forum selection clause, 19 “[t]he defendant, as the moving party, has the burden of proof.” (See Intershop Communications AG, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at pp. 196, 198.) “In contrast, in cases with a [mandatory] contractual forum selection clause, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, the party resisting the motion,” to “sh 2015Where no such clause applies, a court may halt a California action only after “weighing . . . a gamut of factors of public and private convenience.” (Cal- State Business Products & Services, Inc. v. Ricoh (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1666, 1683 .) However, where a forum selection clause mandates litigation in a particular forum, the court should defer to the selected forum as long as doing so would not be “unreasonable”—that is, unless the designated forum “would be unavailable or unable to accomplish substantial justice or that no rational basis exists for the choice of forum.” (Intershop Communicat | 1 | 2 |
Quanta Computer Inc. v. Japan Commc'ns Inc.green2 sentences2023(Quanta Computer Inc. v. Japan Communications Inc. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 438, 444 (Quanta).) Since, without such a clause, “neither party possesses a right to any particular forum,” a court’s “selection of one [forum] over the other requires the weighing of a gamut of factors of public and private convenience, not to mention the strong interest of a plaintiff’s domicile in providing the plaintiff access to its courts.” (Cal-State Business Products & Services, Inc. v. Ricoh (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1666, 1683 (Cal-State); see Berg, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 359 [where “a clause merely provides f 2023(Quanta Computer Inc. v. Japan Communications Inc. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 438, 444 (Quanta).) Since, without such a clause, “neither party possesses a right to any particular forum,” a court’s “selection of one [forum] over the other requires the weighing of a gamut of factors of public and private convenience, not to mention the strong interest of a plaintiff’s domicile in providing the plaintiff access to its courts.” (Cal-State Business Products & Services, Inc. v. Ricoh (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1666, 1683 (Cal-State); see Berg, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 359 [where “a clause merely provides f | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Drulias v. 1ST Century Bancshares, Inc.
green
2 sentences2023(Drulias, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at p. 703 .) Rather, the forum selection clause typically will be enforced, absent a showing that enforcement of the forum selection clause would be unfair or unreasonable. 2023(Drulias, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at p. 703 .) Rather, the forum selection clause typically will be enforced, absent a showing that enforcement of the forum selection clause would be unfair or unreasonable. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Trident Labs, Inc. v. Merrill Lynch Commercial Finance Corp.
green
1 sentence2022Claims that the previously chosen forum is unfair or inconvenient are generally rejected.” (See Berg v. MTC Electronics Technologies Co. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 349 , 358–359.) “Under a traditional forum non conveniens analysis,” that is, one that does not involve a mandatory forum selection clause, 19 “[t]he defendant, as the moving party, has the burden of proof.” (See Intershop Communications AG, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at pp. 196, 198.) “In contrast, in cases with a [mandatory] contractual forum selection clause, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, the party resisting the motion,” to “sh | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Verdugo v. Alliantgroup, L.P.
green
1 sentence2017(Verdugo, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 147 ; Weil & Brown, supra, § 3:444.6, p. 3-130.) Because forum selection provisions are presumed valid, the party seeking to prevent enforcement bears the burden to show enforcement would be unreasonable. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Great Northern Railway Co. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1998Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 105 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 461 ] [collecting generally applicable factors]; Cal-State, supra, 12 Cal.App.4th 1666, 1683 [declining to apply “Great Northern factors” in light of fomm selection clause].) If there is no mandatory fomm selection clause, a fomm non conveniens motion “requires the weighing of a gamut of factors of public and private convenience . . . .” ( Cal-State, supra, 12 Cal.App.4th 1666, 1683 .) However if there is a mandatory forum selection clause, the test is simply whether application of the clause is unfair or unreasonable, and the claus 1998Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 105 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 461 ] [collecting generally applicable factors]; Cal-State, supra, 12 Cal.App.4th 1666, 1683 [declining to apply “Great Northern factors” in light of fomm selection clause].) If there is no mandatory fomm selection clause, a fomm non conveniens motion “requires the weighing of a gamut of factors of public and private convenience . . . .” ( Cal-State, supra, 12 Cal.App.4th 1666, 1683 .) However if there is a mandatory forum selection clause, the test is simply whether application of the clause is unfair or unreasonable, and the claus | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.