TUCKER v. THE COCHRAN FIRM-CRIMINAL DEFENSE BIRMINGHAM L.L.C., 2014 OK 112

Background

Christopher Tucker hired The Cochran Firm (Birmingham) in 2010 to defend municipal misdemeanor charges and paid a substantial nonrefundable retainer; he was later convicted.
Tucker sued the firm in Oklahoma County District Court alleging fraud, legal malpractice, consumer-protection violations, breach of contract, and related torts arising from the firm’s alleged failures in preparing/trying his case.
The written retainer contained an interstate forum-selection clause: California law governs and jurisdiction/venue are exclusively Los Angeles County, California.
The Cochran Firm moved to dismiss based on the forum-selection clause; the trial court enforced the clause and dismissed for improper venue.
The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed, finding questions about execution/validity of the written agreement and whether the forum clause was enforceable.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Court of Civil Appeals opinion, reversed the district court dismissal, and remanded for proceedings under the proper procedural vehicles.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper procedure to enforce an interstate forum-selection clause in Oklahoma state court	Tucker argued the clause may be invalid and the trial court should not dismiss without resolving contract-formation facts; procedure was not clear	Cochran Firm asked for dismissal (venue) and relied on the clause; treated enforcement as improper-venue dismissal	Enforcement of an interstate forum-selection clause must be sought by motion under 12 O.S. § 2012(B)(6) (or Rule 13 summary judgment); district court must use those procedures and provide notice/opportunity to litigate facts
Allocation of burdens when clause is asserted	Tucker contended he did not consent to or negotiate the clause and raised fraud/public-policy defenses	Cochran Firm maintained plaintiff bears burden to show enforcement is unfair/unreasonable once a prima facie showing is made	Defendant seeking dismissal has initial burden to make a prima facie showing; if met, plaintiff must rebut (challenge validity, consent, or show public-policy grounds). If material facts are presented, the motion converts to summary judgment practice and may create factual issues for trial
Separability of forum-selection clause from the contract	Tucker argued overall contract defects might invalidate the clause	Cochran Firm argued the clause is enforceable independent of other contract disputes	The clause is separable and its validity is assessed like any contractual provision; attacks on the clause itself are resolved before enforcing venue, while attacks on the contract generally may be reserved for the agreed forum if the clause is valid
Role of public-policy/forum non conveniens considerations	Tucker urged public policy (attorney duties, alleged fraud/malpractice) required denying enforcement	Cochran Firm argued enforcement should stand absent clear public-policy exception or fraud in procurement	If a prima facie valid clause is shown, courts should consider only public-interest/public-policy factors (not private convenience); plaintiff bears burden to show public-policy bars enforcement

Key Cases Cited

Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States Dist. Court, 134 S. Ct. 568 (U.S. 2013) (federal guidance that forum-selection clauses are enforced via forum non conveniens/transfer principles, and venue statutes do not become "improper" simply by contract)
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1947) (framework for weighing private and public interests in forum non conveniens analysis)
Conoco, Inc. v. Agrico Chemical Co., 115 P.3d 829 (Okla. 2004) (Oklahoma adoption of Gulf Oil private/public interest approach in forum non conveniens decisions)
Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U.S. 346 (U.S. 2008) (separability principle: arbitration/forum clauses may be treated as distinct from the rest of the contract for certain validity challenges)