Opinion
Case No. 20040680-CA.
Filed November 18, 2004. (Not For Official Publication).
Appeal from the Third District, Salt Lake Department, The Honorable J. Dennis Frederick.
James C. Swindler, Draper, for Appellant.
Mark O. Morris and James D. Gardner, Salt Lake City, for Appellees.
Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Orme.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
C-A-R Leasing, Inc. (CAR) appeals the trial court's order granting Appellees' motion to dismiss for improper venue. This case is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition.
CAR alleges tort and contract claims against Precise Pay, Inc., and a claim against Carrell as an agent of Precise Pay, Inc. Each of these claims relate to a contract executed in June 2002. The contract includes a forum selection clause that states: "[V]enue for any action to enforce or construe this Agreement shall be proper only in the County of Santa Clara, California." This clause was the basis for Appellees' motion to dismiss.
This court reviews a trial court's dismissal based on a forum selection clause for abuse of discretion. Coombs v. Juice Works Dev., Inc., 2003 UT App 388, ¶ 5, 81 P.3d 769. Utah courts give effect to a forum selection clause "`unless it is unfair or unreasonable.'" Id. at ¶ 9 (quoting Prows v. Pinpoint Retail Sys., 868 P.2d 809, 812 (Utah 1993)). A party who brings an action in violation of a choice-of-forum provision bears the burden of proof on this issue. See id. To meet this burden, a party who seeks to overcome a forum selection clause "must demonstrate that the chosen state would be so seriously an inconvenient forum that to require the plaintiff to bring suit there would be unjust." Id. (quotations and citation omitted).
The trial court ruled that the forum selection clause rendered dismissal without prejudice appropriate. We agree. "A primary reason for forum selection clauses is to protect a party . . . from having to litigate in distant forums all over the nation. . . . Such provisions should be enforced when invoked by the party for whose benefit they are intended." Id. at ¶ 15. Appellees invoked the forum selection clause, and the trial court found nothing unfair or unreasonable about its terms.
CAR's arguments concerning its failure to read the small print language now at issue, the costs of litigation in another forum, or the difference between tort and contract actions do not invalidate an otherwise reasonable forum selection clause. See Coombs, 2003 UT App 388 at ¶¶ 12-15. CAR fails to show that suit in Santa Clara County would be unjust, or that enforcing the clause would in effect deny CAR its day in court. See id. at ¶ 15. CAR's remaining arguments are without merit.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order.
Russell W. Bench, Associate Presiding Judge, James Z. Davis, Judge, Gregory K. Orme, Judge.