TUCKER v. THE COCHRAN FIRM-CRIMINAL DEFENSE BIRMINGHAM L.L.C.
2014 OK 112
| Okla. | 2014Background
- Tucker sued The Cochran Firm-Criminal Defense Birmingham L.L.C. in Oklahoma County alleging fraud, malpractice, consumer-protection violations, outrage, and contract breach after hiring them for a criminal case.
- The Retainer Agreement contained a California governing law and a forum-selection clause: exclusive venue in Los Angeles County, California.
- Cochran Firm moved to dismiss the Oklahoma action on the basis of the forum-selection clause; the trial court granted the motion.
- The District Court dismissed, Tucker appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, remanding for further proceedings.
- This Court granted certiorari to address the proper procedural mechanism to enforce a contract-based forum-selection clause and its severability from the contract.
- The Court ultimately remanded for proceedings consistent with holding that the enforcement procedure is § 2012(B)(6)/Rule 13 summary-judgment and that the clause is separable from the contract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What procedure enforces an interstate forum-clause in Oklahoma? | Tucker claims proper enforcement via standard contract-claims procedure. | Cochran Firm argues for § 2012(B)(6) or summary judgment to enforce the clause. | Remanded to apply correct § 2012(B)(6)/Rule 13 procedure. |
| Is an interstate forum-selection clause severable from the contract? | Consent and validity of the clause were contested. | Clause is a separable contract provision enforceable apart from the rest of the agreement. | Clause is separable; validity governed by contract law. |
| Who bears the burden to prove enforceability after prima facie validity is shown? | Public policy/fraud arguments may vitiate enforcement. | Defendant bears burden to show facial validity; plaintiff bears burden after prima facie showing. | Burden allocation discussed; remand to resolve with proper procedure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States Dist. Court, 134 S. Ct. 568 (2013) (enforcement of forum-selection clauses for state/foreign forums via forum non conveniens; plaintiff bears burden when clause valid.)
- Conoco, Inc. v. Agrico Chemical Co., 2004 OK 83, 115 P.3d 829 (Okla. 2004) (forum non conveniens factors; private/public interests; severability concept applied.)
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1947) (forum non conveniens framework; private/public interests.)
- St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Superior Court, 276 P.2d 778 (Okla. 1954) (early Oklahoma adoption of forum non conveniens criteria.)