35 Cal. App. 5th 179
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Plaintiffs sued financial advisors for alleged misrepresentations in sales of leveraged life‑insurance financing; the loan agreement contained a mandatory forum‑selection clause selecting Georgia.
- Three defendants (Global Financial) filed a demurrer (then later another demurrer) and served discovery; after an amended complaint, they renewed demurrer and later moved to enforce the Georgia forum clause under Code Civ. Proc. § 410.30(b).
- The trial court denied the forum‑selection motion as untimely, reasoning that failure to move to dismiss for inconvenient forum when filing the demurrer waived the issue under § 418.10(e)(3).
- Global Financial petitioned for a writ of mandate; the appellate court issued an order to show cause and reviewed the statutory conflict de novo.
- The appellate court concluded § 418.10 governs preappearance (special‑appearance) motions, while § 410.30 governs post‑appearance forum‑non‑conveniens motions; because filing a demurrer is a general appearance, § 410.30 applied and the motion was timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a motion to stay/dismiss for inconvenient forum is waived if not made when filing a demurrer under § 418.10(e)(3) | Failure to move with demurrer forfeits/in effect waives the inconvenient‑forum defense per § 418.10(e)(3) | A demurrer is a general appearance; § 418.10 governs preappearance only, while § 410.30(b) allows post‑appearance motions, so the motion was timely | The court held § 418.10 applies preappearance; § 410.30 applies after a general appearance (including demurrer), so the motion was not untimely and trial court erred |
| How to harmonize §§ 418.10 and 410.30 when they appear to conflict | Read § 418.10 waiver broadly to control timing | Statutes are reconcilable: § 418.10 provides special preanswer procedures; § 410.30 permits later motions after appearance; legislative history and procedure support this division | The statutes are harmonized: § 418.10 gives special protections for preanswer special appearances; § 410.30 governs motions after general appearance and permits a reasonable‑timed forum‑non‑conveniens motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Stangvik v. Shiley Inc., 54 Cal.3d 744 (Cal. 1991) (defines forum non conveniens doctrine and distinguishes it from jurisdictional challenges)
- Britton v. Dallas Airmotive, Inc., 153 Cal.App.4th 127 (Ct. App. 2007) (harmonizes §§ 418.10 and 410.30: § 418.10 for preappearance motions, § 410.30 for postappearance motions)
- Korman v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., 32 Cal.App.5th 206 (Ct. App. 2019) (recognizes enforcement of forum‑selection clauses via §§ 410.30 and 418.10)
- Global Packaging, Inc. v. Superior Court, 196 Cal.App.4th 1623 (Ct. App. 2011) (discusses forum‑non‑conveniens concerns such as location of witnesses and documents)
- Verdugo v. Alliantgroup, L.P., 237 Cal.App.4th 141 (Ct. App. 2015) (distinguishes mandatory vs permissive forum‑selection clauses and explains scope of analysis)