Ryze Claim Solutions LLC v. Superior Court

Filed 4/3/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

RYZE CLAIM SOLUTIONS LLC, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA A155842 COSTA COUNTY, (Contra Costa County Respondent; Super. Ct. No. C1801555) JEROME NEDD, Real Party in Interest.

Petitioner and defendant Ryze Claim Solutions LLC (Ryze) seeks writ relief from an order of the trial court denying its motion to dismiss or stay the lawsuit filed by its former employee Real Party in Interest and plaintiff Jerome Nedd on improper forum grounds. We shall issue the writ. BACKGROUND Ryze’s headquarters and principal place of business was in Noblesville in Hamilton County, Indiana, north of Marion County, Indiana, where Indianapolis is the county seat. On May 5, 2014, Ryze hired Nedd, a California resident, to work for the company in El Cerrito in Contra Costa County. On March 28, 2017, Ryze terminated Nedd’s employment. On August 1, 2018, Nedd filed a wrongful termination suit against Ryze in Contra Costa County Superior Court. His complaint alleged eight causes of action, five of them under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq.

1

(FEHA). On September 10, 2018, Ryze moved to dismiss or stay Nedd’s case because it was filed in an improper forum. When Nedd was first employed by Ryze, the parties had entered into a written Employment Agreement (Employment Agreement), which contained the following forum selection clause: “Applicable Jurisdiction. [Ryze] is based in Indiana, and Employee understands and acknowledged [Ryze’s] desire and need to defend any litigation against it in Indiana. Accordingly, the parties agree that any claim of any type brought by Employee against [Ryze] or any of its employees or agents must be maintained only in a court sitting in Marion County, Indiana, or Hamilton County, Indiana, or if a federal court, the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.” The Employment Agreement further stated: “The term of this contract shall be for a period commencing on May 5, 2014, and continuing for a period of one (1) year under the terms, conditions and rates of compensation hereinafter set forth. Following the completion of the first year of the contract and each year thereafter, this contract shall automatically be extended by one (1) year, subject . . . to the termination language . . . of this Agreement.” On November 6, 2018, the trial court denied Ryze’s motion and declined to stay or dismiss the case in favor of the Indiana forum specified in the Employment Agreement. The trial court observed that forum selection clauses will not be enforced when contrary to California public policy and found that enforcing the forum selection clause would “go against the state’s public policy expressed in at least two statutes,” specifically citing Labor Code section 925 and Government Code section 12965. Ryze now seeks a peremptory writ of mandate from this court to direct the trial court to vacate its November 6, 2018 order and to enter a new and different order granting Ryze’s motion to dismiss or stay the action. On December 7, 2018, we stayed the trial court proceedings pending further order of this court, requested opposition to the writ petition, and issued notice under Palma v.