Ryze Claim Solutions LLC v. Superior Court of Contra Costa Cnty.
245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 575
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Ryze Claim Solutions LLC (Indiana HQ) hired Nedd (California resident) on May 5, 2014; Nedd worked in El Cerrito, CA and was terminated March 28, 2017.
- Employment Agreement contained a forum-selection clause requiring employee claims to be litigated only in Marion or Hamilton County, Indiana, or the Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis).
- Nedd sued Ryze in Contra Costa County Superior Court on August 1, 2018, including FEHA causes of action; Ryze moved to dismiss or stay for improper forum.
- Trial court denied Ryze’s motion, citing California public policy (Labor Code §925 and Gov. Code §12965) and FEHA’s broad venue choices.
- Ryze petitioned for a writ; this appellate court stayed trial proceedings and considered whether the forum-selection clause is enforceable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of forum-selection clause | Nedd: enforcement would violate CA public policy (Labor Code §925 and FEHA venue policy) | Ryze: clause is valid and should be enforced; Indiana is appropriate forum | Court: clause enforceable; trial court erred in refusing enforcement on those public-policy grounds |
| Applicability of Labor Code §925 | Nedd: §925 shows CA policy against out-of-state forum terms and supports refusing enforcement | Ryze: §925 applies only to contracts entered/modified/extended on/after Jan 1, 2017; this contract predates that | Court: §925 does not apply because the contract was not entered, modified, or extended on/after Jan 1, 2017; trial court improperly applied §925 policy retroactively |
| Relevance of FEHA venue provisions | Nedd: FEHA’s broad venue options evidence a legislative policy favoring CA venues that should defeat out-of-state forum clauses | Ryze: FEHA venue is intrastate (county) matter and does not invalidate interstate forum-selection clauses | Court: FEHA’s venue scheme concerns intrastate venue, not interstate forum selection; does not bar enforcing the clause |
| Adequacy of chosen forum (Indiana) | Nedd: enforcement would be unfair for a California resident | Ryze: no showing Indiana would be inadequate or unavailable | Court: Nedd made no showing Indiana would be inadequate; requiring litigation in Indiana is not unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith, Valentino & Smith, Inc. v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.3d 491 (recognizes validity of forum-selection clauses absent unreasonableness)
- Brown v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.3d 477 (discusses FEHA’s policy affording plaintiffs broad choice of venue)
- Alexander v. Superior Court, 114 Cal.App.4th 723 (distinguishes interstate forum-selection clauses from intrastate venue rules)
- Olinick v. BMG Entertainment, 138 Cal.App.4th 1286 (upholds forum-selection clause for FEHA claims where selected forum provides adequate remedy)
- Quanta Computer Inc. v. Japan Communications Inc., 21 Cal.App.5th 438 (discusses standards for reviewing enforcement of forum-selection clauses)
- Korman v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., 32 Cal.App.5th 206 (notes appellate split on standard of review for forum-selection enforcement)
- Intershop Communications v. Superior Court, 104 Cal.App.4th 191 (presumes contractual forum-selection clauses valid absent showing of unreasonableness)