TUCKER v. THE COCHRAN FIRM-CRIMINAL DEFENSE BIRMINGHAM L.L.C.
2014 OK 112
| Okla. | 2014Background
- Tucker hired The Cochran Firm (Birmingham) in 2010 for criminal defense in Oklahoma and paid a large non-refundable retainer; he was later convicted on a municipal charge.
- The written retainer contained an interstate forum-selection clause: California law governs and exclusive jurisdiction/venue is Los Angeles County, California.
- Tucker sued the firm in Oklahoma County District Court alleging fraud, malpractice, consumer-protection violations, breach of contract, and other torts based on the firm's trial performance and representations.
- The Cochran Firm moved to dismiss based on the forum-selection clause; the trial court granted dismissal after vacating an earlier denial and found enforcement neither unfair nor unreasonable.
- The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed, concluding issues about execution and the existence/validity of the written retention agreement required further proceedings.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Court of Civil Appeals opinion, and remanded for further proceedings, clarifying the proper procedure and burdens for enforcing interstate forum-selection clauses in state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper procedural mechanism to enforce interstate forum-selection clause in Oklahoma state court | Trial court should not dismiss on clause without adjudicating validity; appellate court must review de novo | A defendant may obtain dismissal enforcing the clause; trial court properly enforced clause | A party seeking dismissal based on an interstate forum-selection clause must proceed by 12 O.S. §2012(B)(6) motion or Rule 13 summary judgment; remand for proper procedure |
| Burden allocation when clause invoked | Tucker: burden on defendant to prove clause enforceable and on plaintiff to show unfairness/public-policy invalidation | Cochran Firm: plaintiff must show enforcement is unfair/unreasonable after defendant shows prima facie validity | Defendant bears initial burden to make prima facie showing; if shown, plaintiff bears burden to prove clause invalid or that public-interest requires non-enforcement |
| Separability of forum-selection clause from contract | Tucker: clause may be invalid if contract not properly executed or clause not negotiated | Cochran Firm: forum clause is separable and may be enforced independently | Forum-selection clauses are separable from the rest of the contract and their validity is judged like any contract provision |
| Role of public policy/fraud in resisting enforcement | Tucker: alleged fraud, lack of consent, and professional-ethics concerns render clause unenforceable | Cochran Firm: allegations do not defeat clause absent proof; plaintiff must show clause invalid or enforcement contrary to public policy | Plaintiff may raise contract-based defenses (fraud, lack of consent, public policy) but must do so under proper §2012(B)(6) or summary judgment procedure; court did not decide merits—remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Tex., 134 S. Ct. 568 (U.S. 2013) (federal rule: enforce forum-selection clauses via §1404(a)/forum non conveniens rather than Rule 12(b)(3))
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1947) (framework of private and public interest factors for forum non conveniens)
- Conoco, Inc. v. Agrico Chemical Co., 115 P.3d 829 (Okla. 2004) (Oklahoma’s adoption of Gulf Oil private/public interest analysis)
- Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U.S. 346 (U.S. 2008) (separability doctrine: arbitration/forum clauses considered independently of contract challenges)
- K & V Scientific Co. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, 314 F.3d 494 (10th Cir. 2002) (Tenth Circuit practice of enforcing forum-selection clauses via Rule 12(b)(3) motions)
- Rogers v. Dell Computer Corp., 138 P.3d 826 (Okla. 2005) (remand to district court where state procedure for enforcing arbitration/related clauses needed clarification)