*1 Dist., B162210.Sеcond Div. Five. June [No. 2003.] NET2PHONE, INC., Petitioner, COUNTY,
THE COURT OF ANGELES Respondent; SUPERIOR LOS CAUSE, INC., CONSUMER Real in Interest. Party *3 Counsel
Goldberg Greines, A. Goldberg, Martin, Lawrence & Goldberg; Stein Richland and Timothy T. Coates for Petitioner.
No for appearance Respondent.
Law Offices of Morse Mehrban and Morse Mehrban for Real Party Interest.
Opinion ARMSTRONG, J.In this mandamus we hold that where a proceeding, private which has itself suffered no files a injury representative action under Code, California’s unfair & Prof. law competition (UCL) (Bus. 17200 et that certain of defendant’s contractual seq.) alleging provisions “unlawful, its customers to an subject unfair or fraudulent business . . . and the practice” contract contains a forum selection provision, is bound as just defendant’s customers would be bound had provision filed the they action themselves. History Procedural
Facts services, Net2Phone, Inc., commonly telecommunication internet provides services,” user place phone as that allow computer known “telephony Internet, or to a regular telephone. either to another computer calls over base, of busi- but its principal place has a worldwide customer Net2Phone to utilize Net2Phone’s services Customers who wish Jersey. ness is in New has links Web site. The software download software from Net2Phone’s must The customer and “Terms of Use.” Agreement” to an “End User License also offers a direct to use the software. Net2Phone must both in order accept site, custom- card, Web that enables via Net2Phone’s also calling purchased is carried through to make a call that ers to use a regular telephone According back to a local network. telephone Internet and then switched for to make distance calls Net2Phone, long both services allow customers *4 methods. The calling than current rates for traditional less substantially of the Web site. Language on each page “Terms of Use” hyperlink appears site, he or she that in order to access the site advises the user on Web language the “Tеrms of Use.” The by pertinent must to be bound agree Use, you may these Terms of “If do not wish to be bound by concludes: you Site, Materials, using or of the Services. By or use the not access of Use.” Service, to be bound these Terms by are you agreeing Materials to disclose in its Cause, Inc., contends Net2Phone’s failure Consumer of “rounding up” materials its billing practice and advertising promotional is, in full-minute increments for its services (that charging the nearest minute and materials renders Net2Phone’s time) promotional of use regardless and “false, fraudulent in violation Business advertising misleading further contends Consumer Cause Code section 17200.” Professions in its “Tеrms of billing except failure to disclose its practices Net2Phone’s via high- are accessed User License which Agreement,” Use” and “End UCL. It under the an unfair business practice constitutes lighted hyperlink, fees. and attorney’s an restitution injunction, seeks forum- “Terms of Use” contain Agreement” The “End User License be under the contract shall that arising clauses disputes selection providing “Any dispute The clauses further provide: New law. by Jersey governed be subject this will agreement regarding between and Net2Phone you in the State of New federal courts of the state and exclusive jurisdiction the State of New to exclusive jurisdiction You to submit agree Jersey. to jurisdiction.” waive all defenses and you expressly Jersey, these Citing forum selection Net2Phone filed a motion to provisions, stay Proc., 410.30, or dismiss the action. Civ. subd. (Code (a).)2 § motion, it should not be bound the forum opposed arguing selection clause in the contract because it was neither a to the contract party nor related” to “closely those who were. Consumer Cause further argued UCL its claim was from the forum selection clause because exempt Net2Phone had failed to demonstrate that a New was suitable alter- Jersey action; UCL, native forum for the unlike the a which who permits plaintiff himself has not suffered any injury to an action on bring behalf of general public, Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act Stat. Ann. (N.J. 56:8-1 to 56:8-20) an or the permits only injured General to file such Attorney an action. court
Respondent found that Consumer Cause was not bound the forum selection clause in Net2Phone’s user agreement because Consumer Cause was acting as private attorney general, and “had the real General Attorney action, this brought I would doubt if this court would be him sending to New Jersey try matter.” The court ruled that Consumer Cause could pursue this California, action in but the action would be governed by New Jersey law.
We with agree court that resрondent an unfair competition action brought by public prosecutor would not be to the forum subject selection clause. This is because of the different nature of an fundamentally action brought by prosecutor privately actions. pursued representative (See *5 Payne v. National Collection Systems, 1037, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1045-1047 Cal.Rptr.2d 260].) Although the label “private attorney [111 general” is often used (or describe a misused) in a UCL private plaintiff action, respondent court construed the term too The of a UCL literally. filing action a does by private plaintiff not confer on that the stature of a plaintiff officer, and thе prosecuting fact that the be as a plaintiff may acting so-called is private attorney general irrelevant for of the issue purposes here. The relevant presented in inquiry whether a not a determining plaintiff, contract, to a party is bound contract’s forum selection clause is whether (1) third is party related to the contractual “closely relationship,” and the contractual (2) case, forum state this (in Jersey) provides “suitable alternative forum” for the lawsuit. Both are met here. requirements
Discussion Both the United States Court and the California Supreme Supreme Court have recognized that selectiоn clauses an role play important “[f]orum 410.30, 2Code of Civil Procedure (a), provides: upon section subdivision “When a court party motion of a justice or its own motion finds that in the interest of substantial an action state, should be stay heard in a forum outside this the court shall or dismiss the action in part may just.” whole or in on conditions be 588 Cali- and interstate commerce.” v. (Lu Dryclean-U.S.A. in both national 1490, 906], citing 11 1493 Cal.App.4th Cal.Rptr.2d
fornia,
(1992)
[14
1, 10, 15
S.Ct.
Co.
407 U.S.
(1972)
The Bremen v. Zapata
[92
Off-Shore
Smith,
Smith,
1907, 1913, 1916,
&
Inc. v.
513];
32 L.Ed.2d
Valentino
491,
374, 551 P.2d
Cal.Rptr.2d
Court
17 Cal.3d
496
(1976)
[131
both for businesses
degree
certainty,
Such clauses
1206].)
provide
customers,
be resolved in a particular
that contractual
will
disputes
their
Lines,
585,
U.S.
593-594
Cruise
Inc. v. Shute
499
(Carnival
(1991)
forum.
1522, 1527,
California courts
en-
routinely
S.Ct.
Consumer Cause is “closely and its customers. clause would matter, find that the forum selection a threshold we
As We filed this action themselves. customers be enforceable had Net2Phone’s contractual that certain in Net2Phone’s requirement no unfairness perceive busi common in Internet via a practice terms must be accessed hyperlink, it or have been a “take the forum selection clause ness. The fact that fоr” as Consumer “bargained and not vigorously leave it” proposition,
589 Lines, contends, does not make the clause unenforceable. Cruise (Carnival Shute, Inc. v. at at 499 U.S. 601 S.Ct. supra, pp. pp. [111 contract, a the has
Although Consumer Cause is not itself to it sued in a contractual terms. so representative By certain capacity challenging Consumer Cause to assert the of those who are doing, purports parties to the contract. If it Consumer Cause succeed in altering will prevails, contract, terms of the the fruits of fees. victory including attorney’s reap Consumer Cause is related” to the contractual “closely because relationship it stands in the shoes of those whom it Its to argument purports represent. is inconsistent with its as a contrary position representative plaintiff. otherwise, Were we to hold could avoid a valid forum selection plaintiff clause simply by having representative file the action. Lu v. nonparty (See Inc., Dryclean-U.S.A. at California, supra, Cal.App.4th p. 1494.) Lu, In a franchisor’s was found to be related” to corporate parent “closely the contractual franchisee, between the franchisor and its be- relationship cause the franchisor was to have in the alleged fraudulent participаted that induced the misrepresentations to enter into the franchise agreement. Consumer Cause correctly out that the case is points factually However, on that basis. distinguishable Lu also alleged was the “alter of the parent franchisor that the franchise ego” signed words, in other agreement; lawsuit, for the two were one and purposes Cause, the same. The of Consumer is position representative plaintiff, similar in that respect.
Bancomer, S. A. v. Court Superior Cal.App.4th cited Cal.Rptr.2d 435], Consumer Cause in its return to the is petition, That distinguishable. case involved a bank that had no relationship contractual trustee, other than thrust into a as dispute being position enforce, defeat, which was not a forum selection clause. attempting Cause, Unlike Consumer the bank in that case had from nothing gain resolution of the contractual dispute. Online,
America Inc. v. Cause, 699], cited Consumer is also factually distinguishable. case, In that a class action filed to the California Consumers pursuant Legal Code, Remedies Act 1750 et the court held a forum (CRLA) (Civ. seq.), selection clause invalid because CRLA contains that voids provision *7 any waiver of as to California purported being contrary public policy. UCL, action, The under Consumer no which this cоntains brought such limitation. alternate Jersey is suitable forum. Ann. 56:8-1 to
The New Consumer Fraud Act Stat. Jersey (CFA) (N.J. However, the UCL. it differs from is similar in to 56:8-20), many ways must be filed either UCL in one crucial an action under the CFA respect: suffers ascertainable loss General or who Attorney “[a]ny person has itself suffered no or . . .” Because Consumer Cause moneys property. it ascertainable loss from Net2Phone’s unlawful business alleged practices, of the forum selection clause would be unreasonable that enforcement argues to this action in New standing bring Jersey. because it would not have not seen fit to confer on private the New has Althоugh Jersey Legislature on not to action injured right bring representative who are parties are, mean that New does necessarily Jersey behalf of those who this does not to customer injured Any not the means consumers. provide protect billing prac- Net2Phone who claims to have been Net2Phone’s injured by the Attorney tices an action in New on Jersey, may prevail bring Consumer Cause does not Significantly, General of New to do so. Jersey not be were they claim Net2Phone’s customers would adequately protected Instead, Consumer Cause has Jersey. their claims in New pursue required lack of While it is true that standing. foсused its own only should it to recover fees attorney’s Cause stands to lose opportunity action, is the our consideration paramount in a California UCL prevail consumers, not the enrichment of attorneys. protection
Disposition A writ shall issue for writ of mandate is granted. peremptory petition 1, 2002, order of October denying court to vacate its directing respondent action, enter a or dismiss the stay motion of defendant Net2Phone are the motion to Costs awarded stay. new and different order granting Net2Phone. J.,
Turner, P. concurred.
MOSK, J.I dissent. respectfully selection clause to enforce or not enforce forum
A trial court’s decision discretion. S. A. v. is reviewed for an abuse of (Bancomer, see Cal-State 435]; but 44 Cal.App.4th Services, 12 Cal.App.4th & Inc. v. Ricoh (1993) Business Products For the follow- test].) 1680-1681 Cal.Rptr.2d 417] [substantial-evidence refusing its discretion in reasons, not believe the trial court abused I do ing in this case. the forum selection clauses to enforce
591 The New forum selection clause in the contracts between defendant Jersey Net2Phone, Inc. and various consumers is not (Net2Phone), applicable Cause, enforceable as to claims Inc. brought by (Con- Code, sumer under .California’s unfair law & Prof. (Bus. Cause), competition 17200 et The enforcement of such forum selection clauses to seq.) (UCL).1 divest California of cases under the UCL is attorney general contrary private enforceable, to California If such clauses are public attorney policy. private actions under California statutes could be frustrated. In general regulatory addition, Net2Phone; is not a contract with any contractual; claims are not and is not a statutory, Jersey suitable alternative forum available to plaintiff.
Public policy selection clauses under precludes enforcement of forum these circumstances.
“California courts will refuse defer to the selected forum if tо do so would diminish the substantially rights of California residents in a way Online, violates our state’s Inc. v. public policy.” (America 1, (2001) 90 12 Cal.App.4th Enforcement of the Cal.Rptr.2d 699].) [108 forum selection diminish clause here would substantially of Cali- fornia residents in contravention of public policy. unlawful,
The UCL prohibits “any unfair or fraudulent business act or unfair, and practice untrue or act deceptive, misleading advertising 1 prohibited by with Section of Part 3 of Chapter (commencing 17500) Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.” The (§ coverage 17200). “ “ of the UCL is that can be called ‘sweeping, embracing ‘anything properly a business and that at practice the same time is forbidden law.”” Communications, (Cel-Tech Inc. v. Los Cellular Tele- Angeles [Citations.]” 548, Co. 20 Cal.4th phone (1999) 973 P.2d [83 A to include a person (defined corporation (§ who undertakes such 17201)) conduct be from enjoined in the unfair business engaging practice ordered to restitution. pay (§ 17203.) of the UCL “is to fair “primary purpose” business preserve competi
tion by extending protections available to business traditionally competitors Internat. consuming public.” (Rothschild Tyco (US), 488, 493 The UCL reflects Cal.Rptr.2d 721].) “‘[T]he law, both ... tendency legislative common direction of enforcing increasingly standards of fairness or commercial higher morality ’ ” in trade. ex rel. Mosk v. National Co. Cal. Research (People the UCL constitutes Cal.App.2d Accordingly, Cal.Rptr. 516].)
1Undesignated statutory references shall be to the and Professions Code. Business *9 California, of recent notwithstanding an of the State important public policy Stem, Unfair Business Practices and of abuses in its use. allegations (See & Code ed. 2000) p. [referring False Bus. Prof. Advertising: (5th § of That law].) public to the UCL as “a oak” consumer sprawling protection UCL in California must California law be notified of by appel- prosecutors a late in California so that is they may participate (§ 17209) proceedings of further indication that the UCL refleсts an important public policy California. UCL, the to the public policies
In order implement important the had to sue to enforce standing that Legislature provided multiple parties Thus, enforcement of the UCL to aggrieved parties, act. rather than limiting the that actions for relief under the UCL be Legislature specified state or local “in the name of the of the State brought by People prosecutors of California” “or the interests its members by any acting person for of itself or the italics the UCL (§ added.) Accordingly, general public.” effect, as, to act to the anyone attorney general protect allows private certain commercial The UCL reflects wrongs deceptions. public against in Cali- that individual claims or class actions Legislature’s conclusion officials are not to fornia courts or actions California by public adequate To to restrict the avail- private parties California consumers. allow protect the courts or of relief under the UCL to that offered ability by public the broad means of enforcement of officials of another state conflicts with the California Legislature. the UCL established by enforcing the effect of the majority’s opinion That restriction is precisely the fomm selection clauses and this action to New sending Jersey. Ann. 56:8-1 to does not 56:8-20), Consumer Fraud Act Stat. Jersey’s (N.J. brought by allow actions such as attorney general private the UCL ordering here. The eviscerates majority’s opinion that does not permit private attorneys general dispute jurisdiction unfair action. statutory competition prosecute assertion, of the “enrichment this is not an issue Contrary majority’s ante, of at It is an issue 590.) preserving of attorneys.” (Maj. opn., p. and of a means maintaining scheme enacted statutory Legislature As this court ob recently the UCL’s enforcing important public policies. “ feasible to sue served, economically UCL actions make it ‘[Representative litigation, claims are too small to justify expense when individual actions.’” to undertake enforcement private thereby encourage attorneys Internat., (Rosenbluth an unlawful of the action is subject “Where Cal.Rptr.2d 844].)
1077 [124 consumers, the that harms individual business or false advertising practice consumer/victims, welcome the individually, may opportunity powerless (Id. under the UCL.” at have their vindicated in a action representative 1077-1078.) pp. selection clauses under the circumstances
The enforcement of forum to conduct business in California but provide this case will allow parties *10 used widely themselves with from one immunity important procedure the enforcement of deter certain conduct—that procedure being proscribed 17200, 17204, & 17500 by attorneys general. (See, e.g., private §§ 17535; Proc., 1021.5; v. Burbank 232 (1991) Code Civ. Angelheart City § attorney general principle 460 Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. [private [285 463] to constitutional applies rights, statutory rights important public policies].) v.
In Hall 150 411 Superior (1983) Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. [197 757] the court held that a forum selection could not be enforced so (Hall), clause as to result in an of California’s evasion protections Corporate Online, Code, Securities Law 25000 et In America Inc. v. (Corp. seq.). § Court, 1 the court held Online), 90 supra, Cal.App.4th (America that a forum in an selection clause could not be enforced connection with Code, action under Act California’s Consumers Remedies Legal (Civ. Online, et 1750 As stated in America “In this relief seq.). respect injunctive § afforded the CRLA is as its is not to correct by unique, purpose simply future to remedy but As our private injury public wrong. explained by Court in 21 Supreme Cigna Broughton Healthplans (1999)] [v. of California 334, Cal.4th [1066,] 1080 2d 988 P.2d ‘Whatever the Cal.Rptr. [90 67]: relief, individual motive of the the benefits of party requesting injunctive granting injunctive relief do not accrue to that but to the by large party, the same general danger being practices victimized public deceptive words, as the suffered. ... In other in a CLRA action is the role of a bona fide damages attorney general. playing private Online, at (Fn. omitted.)” (America p. 16.)2 [Citation.]’ Hall, The same here. It is true that in both 150 principle supra, applies 411, Online, 1, there were and America supra, Cal.App.4th Cal.App.3d But it antiwaiver in the statutes in express provisions question. appears the UCL not be waived generally may of a statute such as protections 1668; Code, also contract because the interest is involved. see (Civ. public § includes a cause of action under plaintiffs “complaint 2The court also noted that the also Code, (Bus. seq.) & 17200 et which shares some competition California’s unfair law Prof. § CLRA, [citation], including right to sue as a class action private remedial similarities with injunctive [citations], enhanced remedies for senior or recovery plus of restitution and relief Online, Code, at persons (Bus. 17206.1).” (America supra, disabled & Prof. 15, 10.) p. fn. Tunkl 92, v. Regents University 60 Cal.2d 94-98 of California 33, Ventures, 441, 383 P.2d 6 A.L.R.3d Henrioulle Marin Cal.Rptr. 693]; 512, 20 Cal.3d 573 P.2d Cal.Rptr.
Moreover, Hall, the court in at said that supra, Cal.App.3d page even in the absence of an antiwaiver the trial court have provision, may discretion to enforce or not enforce the forum selection clause and that investors, more, “California’s securities without policy protect would denial of enforcement of probably justify the choice of forum provision rationale, case, . . . .” Under that in the instant the trial court’s discretion not to enforce the forum selection clause should be upheld.3
That another statute have a regulatory specific provision preventing enforcement of a forum selection clause the California Franchise (see, e.g., *11 Relations Act (§ Jones v. GNC Inc. Cir. 20040.5); Franchising, (9th 2000) Research, 495; 211 F.3d but see v. Inc. Bradley Harris Cir. (9th 2001) F.3d 884 20040.5 the Fedеral Arbitration Act as to arbitra- preempted by [§ does not that absent tions]) suggest such a court is provision, precluded from a forum selection clause when such enforcement enforcing would contravene reflected in a statute. It is established that forum public policy enforced, selection clauses that violate are not and public policy statutes are reflection of principal public policy. The majority that cannot ac acknowledge persons bring representative UCL, tions under the New statute that is Jersey to the but comparable point statute, to the fact that under that Nеw actions be in Jersey may brought New on behalf of the Jersey by public prosecutors customers and other members ante, California, however, at In public. (Maj. opn., p. 590.) any person can act aas in a UCL action. “private attorney general” bringing (See Mortera v. North America Co. Mortgage (N.D.Cal. 2001) 172 F.Supp.2d Addiction, 1240, As the Court said in Youth 1242-1243.) Supreme Inc. Stop Stores, 17 Cal.4th Lucky 1086], P.2d out that both pointing public prosecutors persons UCL, enforce the “That the in section 17204 the Legislature used disjunctive when the entities listing to UCL for . . . relief empowered bring ‘[a]ctions 418, 427, 3In Furda v. Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.3d footnote 5 [207 646], suggested underlying preclude not pоlicies court statutes such as the UCL did strong “a enforcement of choice-of-forum clauses when chosen state had a forum with parties interest in this transaction” and the had a “substantial number of contacts” with that brought forum. That case involved breach of contract and fraud claims and was not under the UCL. entities in the alternative.”4 The designate it meant to such
plainly suggests of does not make continued existence of one avenue relief acceptable UCL statutory extinction of others scheme. provided here. selection clause is not applicable forum Net2Phone’s standard form with its customers inсludes agreement LAW; These Terms “GOVERNING JURISDICTION following provision: of Use shall be and construed in accordance with the laws of the governed State of New You that in action or Jersey. agree any legal proceeding between and Net2Phone for this you any purpose concerning Agreement, courts submit exclusive the state federal you agree jurisdiction [szc] defenses to jurisdiction. Any waive all Jersey you expressly Site, claim cause of action or may have with Services you respect Materials must be commenced within one after the claim or cause of (1) year action arises or such claim or cаuse of action is barred. Net2Phone’s failure to insist or enforce strict of these Terms any upon performance provision of Use shall not be construed as a waiver of or right. Neither any provision the course of conduct between nor trade shall act parties practice Terms of these its modify any provision may assign Use. Net2Phone and duties under these Terms of Use to at time without any notice to you.”
Plaintiff’s consumer contains of false complaint allegations advertising and violations of section 17200. Consumer Cause contends that Net2Phone’s failure to disclose in its and materials its of advertising promotional practice time for “rounding internet calls to the nearest up” elapsed telephone “false, minute renders its advertising misleading materials and promotional and fraudulent in violation of Title 15 U.S.C. section 45(a)(1) (unfair of affecting methods and unfair or acts or competition deceptive practices Code section therefore of Business and Professions 17200.” commerce) Consumer Cause also consum- alleges charging Net2Phone’s practice ers for time”—the time once a call is to “ringing placed prior elapsing the billing connection with the of the call—without recipient disclosing materials, instructions, in its site consti- Web system promotional usage tutes false and an unfair Consumer advertising Finally, business practice. to connect calls made on refusing that Net2Phone’s alleges practice $1—also the cards is less than its cards when the balance on prepaid calling 4Payne Systems, Cal.App.4th Inc. 1045-1047 v. National Collections 91 [111 suggest majority “fundamentally a different nature of Cal.Rptr.2d does not what the call 260] (maj. brought by pursued representative opn., actions” prosecutor privately an action a ante, brought by private p. 587) distinguished prosecutor actions a at because that case class actions. undisclosed in Net2Phone’s an unfair promotional materials—constitutes business and false advertising. practice Cause,
The claims are which has brought by no contractual with Net2Phone. Consumer Cause it filed the action on relationship alleged behalf of California residents “billed Net2Phone for such services by during the four years of the action.” Whether all of such preceding filing residents had contracts with forum selection clauses is not clear.5 Consumer Cause did not need to Net2Phone customers in order to represent only bring an action under the UCL. The action bemay brought “by any acting person for the interests of. . . the As thе seeks general (§ public.” 17204.) plaintiff certain enjoin unfair and alleged deceptive practices, including advertising activities,6 is, effect, and nondisclosure on behalf of the acting rather than for general only of Net2Phone customers.7 public, any group The forum selection clause is not here because Consumer applicable Cause is not a contract party a forum selection clause and containing neither are members of the California be the who would public purported beneficiaries of the action. a to an is not Generally, nonsignatory agreement bound forum selection сlause in the America agreement. (Berclain Latina v. Baan Co. (1999.) Cal.App.4th Cal.Rptr.2d to this rule is when the exception to be bound the forum party sought selection clause is related to a In Lu v. closely signatory agreement. Dryclean-U.S.A. California, 906], the court held that a forum selection clause could be
enforced codefendants not against signed agreements containing who had the forum selection clause but who were to have in the alleged participated franchise law to be “alter alleged ego” violations and that did party Because of this close to not enforce the sign agreеment. relationship, forum selection clause under the circumstances be to “would permit a valid forum selection clause sidestep by naming simply related who did not closely clause as a defendant.” at sign (Id. p. 1494.)
No such is here to from the taking justify sidestepping place departing rule that are not bound the of contracts to general by parties provisions 1998, provision January 5Net2Phone stated that the has been in its contracts since before during period. years may but customers billed the last four have had from an earlier contracts advertising (§ 17500) 6A violation of the false law constitutes a violation of the UCL. Time, 285, (Freeman Inc. (9th 1995) 288-289.) v. Cir. 68 F.3d one-year period, provides while the UCL 7The forum selection clause contains a limitations Moreno v. Sanchez four-year (§ (See (2003) 106 17208). for a statute of limitations 1415, Cal.Rptr.2d limits on statutes of limitations 684] [contractual generally “straightforward must be plus reasonable involve commercial contracts unambiguous rights contracts”].) breaches or accrual of under those to act on which are not they parties. Although purports consumers, to contracts containing behalf of of whom are many parties Moreover, clause, it is not a to such contracts. Con- forum selection party claims, on bеhalf of the sumer Cause raises noncontractual and it acts general public.
New is not a suitable alternative Jersey forum. California that an action not be The has stated Supreme “ for an forum suitable alternative forum is dismissed alternative ‘unless a Shiley available (Stangvik [citations].’” 556, Cal.3d P.2d New is not a Jersey action, suitable this alternative forum for an unfair business lawsuit practices Consumer Cause on behalf of California consumers. As con- brought by ceded this lawsuit could not be in New for majority, brought Jersey, Act, Jersey’s New Consumer Fraud New Statutes Annotated section Jersey 56:8-20, 56:8-1 to does not confer who are not upon private parties person- ally action on behalf of others. injured ability bring representative above, As discussed this anis ability important component the members of the in California. Because Common Cause cannot public this as a bring suit in New the trial court private attorney general Jersey, ruled that is not a correctly Jersey suitable alternative forum and declined to enforce the forum selection clause.
Conclusion For each of the reasons I have I would have affirmed given, ruling the trial court the motion to dismiss. denying of real in interest Court was petition for review Supreme J., Kennard, denied 2003. did not therein. August Werdegar, participate J., Moreno, J., were of the that the should be granted. opinion petition