Forum Selection Clauses

No statutory language available.

In the absence of a showing that enforcement would be unreasonable, a forum selection clause appearing in a contract entered into freely and voluntarily by parties who have negotiated at arm's length will be upheld. Smith, Valentino & Smith v. Superior Court (1976) 17 C.3d 491, 131 C.R. 374, 551 P.2d 1206, 2 Cal. Proc. (4th), Jurisdiction, §347. This is true regardless of whether there are minimum contacts with the state. See National Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent (1964) 375 U.S. 311, 315-316, 84 S. Ct. 411, 414.

Examples of “unreasonableness” are: the formation of the contract was induced by fraud, overreaching, unequal bargaining power, the complaining party "will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court" because of the grave inconvenience or unfairness of the selected forum, the fundamental unfairness of the chosen law may deprive the plaintiff of a remedy or the enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum state. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, supra, 499 U.S. at 595, 111 S.Ct. at 1528; The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. 407 U.S. at 12- 13, 15, 92 S. Ct. at 1914-1915.

Forum Selection Clauses in contracts with pre-dispute jury waiver clauses are considered to be unenforceable because they would “substantially diminish the rights of California residents in a way that violates our state’s public policy.”  Handdoush v. Lease Finance Group, LLC 41  Cal.App.5th 729 254 Cal.Rptr.3d 461 (2019).