Motion To Stay Or Dismiss The Action
SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC24618998 - June 24, 2025 Hearing date: June 24, 2025 Case number: CGC24618998 Case title: MOR FLEISHER LEACH VS. DEEL US LLC, ALSO REFERRED TO AS DEEL, AND LETS ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24618998 | Case Title: | | MOR FLEISHER LEACH VS. DEEL US LLC, ALSO REFERRED TO AS DEEL, AND LETS ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-06-24 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion To Stay Or Dismiss The Action | Rulings: | | Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Tuesday, June 24, 2025, Line 8. 2-DEFENDANT DEEL US LLC'S Motion To Stay Or Dismiss The Action.
Defendant Deel US LLC's motion to stay or dismiss action is denied. Deel's motion is premised on the contention that there is a forum selection clause in plaintiff Mor Leach's employment agreement providing for disputes between the parties to be resolved in Texas courts. However, the employment agreement does not include a forum selection clause providing for resolution of disputes in Texas courts. While Ms. Leach appears to agree that there is a forum selection clause, the task of interpreting the parties' contract lies with the court, not the parties.
The language cited by Deel as being a forum selection clause consists of a single sentence following a choice of law clause selecting Texas law as governing the terms of Ms. Leach's employment. That sentence states: "Any controversy or claim arising out of, or relating to, this Agreement or breach hereof shall be brought before courts having jurisdiction thereof." Other than requiring that the parties' disputes be brought in a court having jurisdiction, the plain and unambiguous quoted language does not select Texas courts or any other court as the forum for their disputes.
The preceding sentence regarding choice of Texas law does not affect the interpretation of the quoted language. Choice of law and forum selection are distinct issues. Absent any extrinsic evidence showing that the quoted language is ambiguous, and the parties have provided none, the court is required to construe the quoted language in accordance with its plan and unambiguous language.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/HEK) | |