32 Cal.App.5th 206
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Plaintiff Barry Korman, a passenger on Crown Princess, sued in Los Angeles Superior Court for injuries sustained when the ship encountered high seas in Feb. 2017; claims: negligence, res ipsa, breach of contract.
- The passenger ticket (passage contract) contained a forum-selection clause requiring injury claims to be litigated in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles), or, if federal subject-matter jurisdiction lacked, in Los Angeles County state court; a one-year limitations provision also applied.
- Defendant Princess Cruise Lines moved under Code Civ. Proc. §§ 410.30 and 418.10 to stay/dismiss for forum non conveniens based on the clause; it specially appeared in state court and asserted the clause required federal-court litigation.
- Trial court initially granted a conditional stay, concluding the clause was mandatory and federal court had subject-matter jurisdiction; plaintiff indicated he would refile in federal court but later declined, and the superior court dismissed the action without prejudice for forum non conveniens.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing (inter alia) that the statutes did not apply because the suit was filed in-state, the clause was unenforceable because it selected a federal forum, and defendant’s failure to timely remove forfeited federal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of §§ 410.30 & 418.10 to enforce a forum-selection clause filed in state court | §§ 410.30/418.10 don't apply because the action was filed in-state, not "in a forum outside this state" | Forum-selection clauses are enforced via motions under those statutes; they authorize declining jurisdiction when forum selection governs | Statutes apply; a forum-selection clause in a passage contract may be enforced via §§ 410.30 and 418.10 |
| Whether the clause is mandatory or permissive | Clause ambiguous; plaintiff contends it should not be read to mandate federal forum exclusively | Clause uses mandatory language ("shall be litigated") and carves state forum only if federal court lacks jurisdiction | Clause is mandatory: requires federal-court litigation (Los Angeles) when federal jurisdiction exists; state-court only if federal court lacks jurisdiction |
| Reasonableness/enforceability of designating a specific federal forum | Designating a federal court (not merely a geographic forum) and depriving state court is unreasonable; failure to remove waived federal jurisdiction | Selecting a federal forum is contractually permissible; enforcement is presumed reasonable absent a showing it would be unavailable or deny substantial justice; failure to remove is a procedural, not jurisdictional, issue | Forum-selection clause enforceable; designation of federal forum is not per se unreasonable; plaintiff bore heavy burden and failed to show unreasonableness |
| Effect of defendant's failure to remove within 28 U.S.C. § 1446 30-day window | Defendant’s failure to remove within 30 days deprived federal court of subject-matter jurisdiction and thus triggers the clause’s state-court fallback | § 1446(b) time limit is procedural, not jurisdictional; failure to remove does not strip federal jurisdiction | Failure to timely remove did not divest federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction; it did not render clause unenforceable |
Key Cases Cited
- Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991) (upholding cruise-ticket forum-selection clause as enforceable absent strong showing of unreasonableness)
- Foust v. San Jose Constr. Co., Inc., 198 Cal.App.4th 181 (2011) (appellate dismissal appropriate when reporter’s transcript is necessary for meaningful review)
- Bel Air Internet, LLC v. Morales, 20 Cal.App.5th 924 (2018) (reporter’s transcript not required where review is de novo and record contains all dispositive filings)
- Chodos v. Cole, 210 Cal.App.4th 692 (2012) (no reporter’s transcript required when appeal presents purely legal issues)
- Cal-State Business Products & Services, Inc. v. Ricoh, 12 Cal.App.4th 1666 (1993) (forum-selection clauses may be enforced via §§ 410.30/418.10 forum non conveniens motions)
- Oltman v. Holland Am. Line USA, Inc., 178 P.3d 981 (Wash. 2008) (upholding clause that required federal-district-forum with state-court fallback when federal court lacks jurisdiction)
- Lischinskaya v. Carnival Corp., 56 A.D.3d 116 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) (same; enforcing clause specifying federal forum with state-court fallback)
- Leslie v. Carnival Corp., 22 So.3d 561 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) (same; rejecting argument that federal-forum selection is unconscionable)