Ryze Claim Solutions LLC v. Superior Court, No. A155842 (D1d3 Apr. 3, 2019)
Plaintiff’s employment agreement has a forum selection for various state and federal courts in Indiana, where Employer is located. Plaintiff nonetheless sued—for violations of FEHA—in Contra Costa County Superior. The trial court denied Employer’s motion to stay in favor of the Indiana forum, finding that FEHA’s venue provision and Labor Code § 925—which renders certain selections of non-California for a unenforceable in certain employment disputes—made the clause unenforceable.
After issuing a Palma notice, the Court here grants a writ. The FEHA venue provisions address venue, not forum. They just say where within California a plaintiff needs to bring his or her claims. As to § 925, it facially applies only to contracts entered after January 1, 2017. Plaintiff’s contract was entered in 2014, so § 925 doesn’t apply.
Writ granted.
Plaintiff’s employment agreement has a forum selection for various state and federal courts in Indiana, where Employer is located. Plaintiff nonetheless sued—for violations of FEHA—in Contra Costa County Superior. The trial court denied Employer’s motion to stay in favor of the Indiana forum, finding that FEHA’s venue provision and Labor Code § 925—which renders certain selections of non-California for a unenforceable in certain employment disputes—made the clause unenforceable.
After issuing a Palma notice, the Court here grants a writ. The FEHA venue provisions address venue, not forum. They just say where within California a plaintiff needs to bring his or her claims. As to § 925, it facially applies only to contracts entered after January 1, 2017. Plaintiff’s contract was entered in 2014, so § 925 doesn’t apply.
Writ granted.