Korman v. Princess Cruise Lines, No. B290681 (D2d4 Feb. 14, 2019)
This is kind of interesting. Admiralty law is basically a body of federal common law. So it makes sense that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1333, federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction in admiralty cases. But that statute also has language—something called the “saving to suitors” clause—that has been read to preserve concurrent state court jurisdiction for in personam (but not in rem) admiralty cases. And while there’s some debate, many courts—including the Ninth Circuit—say the savings to suitors clause creates a procedural, but not a jurisdictional, bar to removal of admiralty cases to federal court if there’s not an independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th Cir. 2001).
If you don’t know that—and I will confess I didn’t—the procedural posture of this case doesn’t make any sense. I started reading and I just kept asking myself: "Isn’t admiralty a federal question? Why don’t these people just remove?” The answer is in a footnote on page 23.
Anyway, that established, this case starts to make sense. Plaintiff is cruise ship passenger who was injured at sea. Her contract of carriage says that the venue for any disputes is federal court in C.D. Cal., and then L.A. Superior, but only if there’s no federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff sued in state court anyway. There’s no diversity, so removal is off the table due to the saving to suitors. So Defendant instead filed a forum nonconveniens motion to have the case dismissed so it could be refiled in the federal courthouse that is literally two blocks away.
Because they ask a court to decline to exercise otherwise lawful jurisdiction on reasonableness grounds, motions to enforce forum selection clauses are brought under the statutes dealing with stays or dismissals on inconvenient forum grounds. Of course, California being California, there are two different statutes, which overlap but have somewhat different procedures. One addresses pre-answer motions to “stay or dismiss on the ground of inconvenient forum[.]” Code Civ. Proc. § 418.10(a)(2). The other, which doesn’t have a time constraint, permits a motion to stay or dismiss when “in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state[.]” § 410.30(a).
Plaintiff here argues that neither applies because an argument that a forum selection clause requires a case to be heard in a courthouse down the street is neither based on actual inconvenience nor an appeal to have the action heard outside of California. The court gives this pretty short shrift, simply citing some cases that say a forum selection clause can be enforced by a motion under these statutes.
I’m not so sure, at least as to § 410.30. “Outside this state” seems pretty clear, and none of the cases cited actually deal with a § 410.30 motion being brought to enforce a forum other than the place of filing that is nonetheless inside of California.
Section 418.10 is a little different. Generally, when there’s a forum selection clause, an analysis of the reasonableness of the clause entirely displaces the traditional multi factor analysis based on the actual convenience of the parties. Viz., when the clause is reasonable, being required to litigate in a forum other than the selected one is, in itself, inconvenient. Otherwise, § 418.10 never could apply to a motion based on a forum selection clause, which clearly isn’t the case.
Of course, the upshot of that would be that if you’re trying to enforce a forum selection to an agreed federal forum, you can only bring your motion as a pleadings stage motion under § 418.10. I’m not sure why any policy reason would support that anomaly, but it doesn’t seem likely to lead to crazy results and has the benefit of being consistent with the words in the statute.
In any event, the Court goes on to find that: (1) the language of the clause isn’t mandatory; (2) the clause’s selection of an available federal forum is reasonable; (3) the clause isn’t invalidated by the savings to suitors clause; and (4) defendant’s failure to take a stab at removing the case didn’t waive the right to seek a stay or dismissal. So it was appropriate to dismiss the case to require plaintiff to seek relief in the contractual venue.
Affirmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment