On May 23, 2023 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Smith, Carole C,
and
Does 1 Through 100, Inclusive,
Forest River, Inc,
for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
Dolores E. Gonzales, Esq. (Bar No. 171306) ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Auto)
dolores. g0nzales@bravolawgr0up. com SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
James R. Robertson, Esq. (Bar No. 204923)
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1/3/2024 11:44 PM
james.robertson@bravolawgroup.com
BRAVO LAW GROUP, A.P.C.
4025 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92108
OtomVODO‘l-POON—L
Telephone: (858) 300-1900
Facsimile: (858) 300-1910
Attorneys for Defendants
FOREST RIVER, INC.
300
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
SUITE
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
92108
A.P.C.
CAROLE C. SMITH, Case No.: CIVSB231 1454
SOUTH,
GROUP, CALIFORNIA
Plaintiff, Judge: Hon. Corey G. Lee
RIO
Dept: S—37
V.
LAW
DEL
REPLY POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
DIEGO,
FOREST RIVER, INC.; and DOES 1 through SUPPORT OF MOTION OF FOREST
BRAVO
CAMINO 100, RIVER, INC. TO STAY ACTION
SAN PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 410.30 — BASED
Defendants. ON GROUNDS OF INCONVENIENT
4025
FORUM
NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA Motion Hearing Date: January 10, 2024
mVOUO‘l-POON—LOCOWVOUO‘I-PCON—L
Motion Time: 8:30 am
Department: S-37
Complaint Filed: May 23, 2023
Trial Date: Not Set
I.
Introduction
Plaintiff s Opposition t0 Defendant Forest River, Inc.’s (“Forest River”) Motion to Stay
based 0n the at-issue Forum Selection Clause (allowing Plaintiff the opportunity refile her matter
-1-
REPLY POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF FOREST RIVER, INC.’S
MOTION TO STAY - PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 410.30
in Indiana, in the agreed-upon forum) opens With the argument that a ‘choice of law’ provision in
the operative written warranty voids the otherwise enforceable mandatory forum selection clause
in Defendant Forest River’s express warranty. Plaintiff’s argument ignores the fact that such
‘choice 0f law provisions’ are not actionable insofar as they conflict with claims based 0n statutes
OtomVODO‘l-POON—L
- like the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act — that contain anti-waiver provisions (Cal Civil
Code section 1790.1). This would be true Whether Plaintiff’s claim was heard in California,
Indiana, or any other jurisdiction.1
Defendant Forest River has not, and does not, argue anything t0 the contrary. In fact, Forest
River has already provided a stipulation that the Song-Beverly Act will apply t0 Plaintiffs
300 substantive claims once this matter is refiled in the selected forum. Additionally, if the referenced
SUITE
ancillary choice-of—law provision is found t0 be contrary t0 the substantive dictates 0f the Song-
92108
A.P.C.
Beverly Act, the same will be severed pursuant to the proffered stipulation. The inclusion of
SOUTH,
ancillary provisions in Forest River’s express limited warranty - that may not be enforceable in
GROUP, CALIFORNIA
RIO every jurisdiction - does not overcome that strong judicial preference for enforcement 0f
LAW
DEL
Defendant’s mandatory forum clause for two key reasons: (1) Defendant has stipulated t0 have the
DIEGO,
instant matter heard using the substantive provisions 0f the California Song-Beverly Act in the
CAMINO
BRAVO
SAN
forum the matter is ultimately heard; and (2) the ancillary language appearing in the warranty
4025
materials can easily be severed from the otherwise enforceable warranty agreement pursuant t0
NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA
CA Civil Code Section 1599. (See Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.
mVOUO‘l-POON—LOCOWVOUO‘I-PCON—L
4th
(2000) 24 Cal. 83, 124 (discussing the long-established principles 0f contract severability); see
also Lang v. Skytap, Inc. (2018) 347 F.Supp.3d 420, 429—431 (discussing forum selection clauses
and general contract severability.)
Defendant Forest River’s Limited Express Warranty, like other motor home and
1
recreational vehicle manufacturers, is prepared for use With consumer sales in all fifty states.
The Federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, anticipating this, requires specific language for
inclusion in Forest River’s warranty at several points which provides “This warranty gives you
specific legal rights, and you may also have other rights Which vary from state t0 state.” (16
C.F.R. section 701 .3(a)(9).) The operative at-issue warranty contains this exact language.
-2-
REPLY POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF FOREST RIVER, INC.’S
MOTION TO STAY - PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 410.30
Document Filed Date
January 03, 2024
Case Filing Date
May 23, 2023
Category
Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Dolores E. Gonzales, Esq. (Bar No. 171306) ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Auto) dolores. g0nzales@bravolawgr0up. com SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA James R. Robertson, Esq. (Bar No. 204923) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 1/3/2024 11:44 PM james.robertson@bravolawgroup.com BRAVO LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 4025 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92108 OtomVODO‘l-POON—L Telephone: (858) 300-1900 Facsimile: (858) 300-1910 Attorneys for Defendants FOREST RIVER, INC. 300 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA SUITE FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 92108 A.P.C. CAROLE C. SMITH, Case No.: CIVSB231 1454 SOUTH, GROUP, CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, Judge: Hon. Corey G. Lee RIO Dept: S—37 V. LAW DEL REPLY POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN DIEGO, FOREST RIVER, INC.; and DOES 1 through SUPPORT OF MOTION OF FOREST BRAVO CAMINO 100, RIVER, INC. TO STAY ACTION SAN PURSUANT TO C.C.P. § 410.30 — BASED Defendants. ON GROUNDS OF INCONVENIENT 4025 FORUM NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA Motion Hearing Date: January 10, 2024 mVOUO‘l-POON—LOCOWVOUO‘I-PCON—L Motion Time: 8:30 am Department: S-37 Complaint Filed: May 23, 2023 Trial Date: Not Set I. Introduction Plaintiff s Opposition t0 Defendant Forest River, Inc.’s (“Forest River”) Motion to Stay based 0n the at-issue Forum Selection Clause (allowing Plaintiff the opportunity refile her matter -1- REPLY POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF FOREST RIVER, INC.’S MOTION TO STAY - PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 410.30 in Indiana, in the agreed-upon forum) opens With the argument that a ‘choice of law’ provision in the operative written warranty voids the otherwise enforceable mandatory forum selection clause in Defendant Forest River’s express warranty. Plaintiff’s argument ignores the fact that such ‘choice 0f law provisions’ are not actionable insofar as they conflict with claims based 0n statutes OtomVODO‘l-POON—L - like the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act — that contain anti-waiver provisions (Cal Civil Code section 1790.1). This would be true Whether Plaintiff’s claim was heard in California, Indiana, or any other jurisdiction.1 Defendant Forest River has not, and does not, argue anything t0 the contrary. In fact, Forest River has already provided a stipulation that the Song-Beverly Act will apply t0 Plaintiffs 300 substantive claims once this matter is refiled in the selected forum. Additionally, if the referenced SUITE ancillary choice-of—law provision is found t0 be contrary t0 the substantive dictates 0f the Song- 92108 A.P.C. Beverly Act, the same will be severed pursuant to the proffered stipulation. The inclusion of SOUTH, ancillary provisions in Forest River’s express limited warranty - that may not be enforceable in GROUP, CALIFORNIA RIO every jurisdiction - does not overcome that strong judicial preference for enforcement 0f LAW DEL Defendant’s mandatory forum clause for two key reasons: (1) Defendant has stipulated t0 have the DIEGO, instant matter heard using the substantive provisions 0f the California Song-Beverly Act in the CAMINO BRAVO SAN forum the matter is ultimately heard; and (2) the ancillary language appearing in the warranty 4025 materials can easily be severed from the otherwise enforceable warranty agreement pursuant t0 NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA CA Civil Code Section 1599. (See Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. mVOUO‘l-POON—LOCOWVOUO‘I-PCON—L 4th (2000) 24 Cal. 83, 124 (discussing the long-established principles 0f contract severability); see also Lang v. Skytap, Inc. (2018) 347 F.Supp.3d 420, 429—431 (discussing forum selection clauses and general contract severability.) Defendant Forest River’s Limited Express Warranty, like other motor home and 1 recreational vehicle manufacturers, is prepared for use With consumer sales in all fifty states. The Federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, anticipating this, requires specific language for inclusion in Forest River’s warranty at several points which provides “This warranty gives you specific legal rights, and you may also have other rights Which vary from state t0 state.” (16 C.F.R. section 701 .3(a)(9).) The operative at-issue warranty contains this exact language. -2- REPLY POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF FOREST RIVER, INC.’S MOTION TO STAY - PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 410.30