Starbbucks

DISCUSSION

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

There is a split of authority as to the appropriate standard of review on a motion to

enforce a forum selection clause. Some courts have applied the abuse of discretion

3 standard. (See Schlessinger v. Holland America (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 552, 557;

America Online, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1, 9; Bancomer, S.A. v.

Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1450, 1457.) Others have applied the substantial

evidence standard of review. (Cal-State Business Products & Services, Inc. v. Ricoh

(1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1666, 1680-1681; CQJ Original Products, Inc v. National Hockey

League Players' Assn. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1347, 1354.) Starbucks asserts that

because the underlying facts of this case are undisputed, the standard of review is de

novo.

We conclude that under any standard of review, the court erred in granting

Outdoor Life Style's motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Law Governing Forum Selection Clauses

Under California law, mandatory forum selection clauses such as the one at issue

in the present appeal are given effect unless they are deemed unfair or unreasonable.

(Berg v.…