Torres v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside
24-3164
9th Cir.Nov 21, 2024Background
- Petitioners, Luis and Dorothy Torres, requested a writ of mandamus to overturn a district court order transferring venue based on a forum-selection clause in a motorhome warranty agreement with Jayco, Inc.
- The forum-selection clause required disputes to be litigated in Indiana, despite California ties to the warranty and vehicle purchase.
- Petitioners argued the clause violated California public policy under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, particularly in light of an anti-waiver provision.
- At the time of the district court's order (March 6, 2024), there was a split in California district court decisions about whether forum-selection clauses are enforceable if the defendant stipulates that California law will apply.
- Subsequently (October 7, 2024), the California Court of Appeal clarified that such a forum-selection clause violates public policy, and stipulating to California law does not cure the violation.
- The Ninth Circuit held that the district court's order was not clearly erroneous under the law as it stood at the time and denied mandamus relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of forum-selection clause | Forum-selection clause is void under Song-Beverly's anti-waiver provision and violates California public policy. | Clause is enforceable because Jayco stipulated Indiana court would apply California law, minimizing policy concerns. | No clear error; district court’s transfer order stands. |
| Appropriateness of mandamus | District court erred clearly enough to warrant extraordinary mandamus relief. | District court’s decision tracked existing split in legal authority and thus was not clear error. | Mandamus denied; no "definite and firm conviction" of error. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Van Dusen, 654 F.3d 838 (9th Cir. 2011) (articulates standard for granting writs of mandamus)
- In re Boon Glob. Ltd., 923 F.3d 643 (9th Cir. 2019) (clarifies clear error as dispositive factor for mandamus)
- In re Swift Transp. Co. Inc., 830 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2016) (mandamus not available absent clear error)
- Verdugo v. Alliantgroup, L.P., 187 Cal. Rptr. 3d 613 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (notes potential effect of foreign forum with California law stipulation)