On 10/01/2019 ANYTIME RENT A CAR, INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against NEXTGEAR CAPITAL, INC . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
*******9088
10/01/2019
Disposed - Dismissed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
SERENA R. MURILLO
ANYTIME RENT A CAR INC.
ARROWHEAD GENERAL INSURANCE AGENCY HOLDING CORP.
NEXTGEAR CAPITAL INC.
YOUZOON INSURANCE SERVICES INC.
SIFERS JAMES STEVEN
NORMANDIN TOM R
10/1/2020: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice
10/1/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay or Dismiss Action Based on Forum Selection Clause
10/8/2020: Reply (name extension) - Reply NextGear Capital, Inc.'s Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Stay or Dismiss
10/15/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Dismiss)
10/15/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Dismiss) of 10/15/2020
6/18/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
6/19/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
4/17/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
1/22/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Appearance of Counsel
11/20/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Gary M. Hoke in Support of NextGear's Motion to Dismiss or Stay Action
11/20/2019: Motion to Dismiss - Motion to Dismiss
10/24/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service
10/24/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service
11/1/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service
10/1/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
10/1/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint
10/1/2019: Complaint - Complaint
10/1/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
DocketUpdated -- Motion to Dismiss: Filed By: Nextgear Capital, Inc. (Defendant); Result: Granted; Result Date: 10/15/2020
DocketOn the Complaint filed by Anytime Rent a Car, Inc. on 10/01/2019, entered Order for Dismissal without prejudice as to the entire action
DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Dismiss)
DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Dismiss) of 10/15/2020; Filed by: Clerk
DocketHearing on Motion to Dismiss scheduled for 10/15/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 10/15/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/30/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 10/15/2020
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 10/04/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 10/15/2020
DocketReply NextGear Capital, Inc.'s Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Stay or Dismiss; Filed by: Nextgear Capital, Inc. (Defendant)
DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by: Anytime Rent a Car, Inc. (Plaintiff)
DocketOpposition Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay or Dismiss Action Based on Forum Selection Clause; Filed by: Anytime Rent a Car, Inc. (Plaintiff)
DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Anytime Rent a Car, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Nextgear Capital, Inc. (Defendant); Service Date: 10/21/2019; Service Cost Waived: No
DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Anytime Rent a Car, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Arrowhead General Insurance Agency Holding Corp. (Defendant); Service Date: 10/21/2019; Service Cost Waived: No
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 10/04/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/30/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Anytime Rent a Car, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Nextgear Capital, Inc. (Defendant); Arrowhead General Insurance Agency Holding Corp. (Defendant); YouZoon Insurance Services, Inc. (Defendant)
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Anytime Rent a Car, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Nextgear Capital, Inc. (Defendant); Arrowhead General Insurance Agency Holding Corp. (Defendant); YouZoon Insurance Services, Inc. (Defendant)
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Anytime Rent a Car, Inc. (Plaintiff); As to: Nextgear Capital, Inc. (Defendant); Arrowhead General Insurance Agency Holding Corp. (Defendant); YouZoon Insurance Services, Inc. (Defendant)
Case Number: 19STLC09088 Hearing Date: October 15, 2020 Dept: 26
Anytime Rent a Car, Inc. v. Nextgear Capital,
Inc., et al. MOTION TO STAY OR DISMISS [FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE] (CCP §§ 410.30, 418.10(b)) TENTATIVE RULING: Motion of Defendant Nextgear
Capital, Inc., joined by Defendants Arrowhead General Insurance Agency Holding
Corp. and YouZoom Insurance Services, Inc., to Stay or Dismiss Action Based on
Forum Selection Clause is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF ANYTIME RENT A CAR, INC.’S
COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED. ANALYSIS: On October 1,
2019, Plaintiff Anytime Rent A Car, Inc. filed the instant action against
Defendants Nextgear Capital, Inc. (“Defendant NextGear”) Arrowhead General Insurance Agency Holding Corp.
(“Defendant Arrowhead”) and YouZoom Insurance Services, Inc. (“Defendant
YouZoom”). The Complaint alleges a single cause of action for breach of
contract against Defendant NextGear and breach of implied-in-fact contract
against Defendants Arrowhead and YouZoom. (Compl., pp. 3, 6.) On November 20,
2019, Defendant NextGear filed the instant Motion to Stay or Dismiss Action
Based on Forum Selection Clause (“the Motion”). Defendants Arrowhead and
YouZoom filed a Notice of Joinder in the Motion on December 5, 2019. Plaintiff
filed an opposition on October 1, 2020 and Defendant NextGear replied on
October 8, 20202. Discussion Defendants move to stay or dismiss the action on the grounds
that the contract between Plaintiff and Defendant NextGear includes a forum
selection clause that provides for venue in Indiana. It is undisputed that the agreement
contains such a clause: As evidenced by Borrower’s signature
below, Borrower submits to the personal jurisdiction and venue of the state and
federal courts of Marion County and Hamilton County, Indiana, and agrees that
any and all claims or disputes pertaining to this Note or any other Loan
Document, or to any matter arising out of or related to this Note or any other
Loan Document, initiated by Borrower against Lender, shall be brought in the
state or federal courts of Marion County or Hamilton County, Indiana. Further,
Borrower expressly consents to the jurisdiction and venue of the state and
federal courts of Marion County and Hamilton County, Indiana, as to any legal
or equitable action that may be brought in such court by Lender, and
waives any objection based upon lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue,
or forum non conveniens with respect to any such action. (Compl., Exh. 1, ¶21.) The Courts favor giving effect to
contractual forum selection clauses. As explained by the California Supreme
Court: No satisfying reason of public
policy has been suggested why enforcement should be denied a forum selection
clause appearing in a contract entered into freely and voluntarily by parties
who have negotiated at arm's length. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude
that forum selection clauses are valid and may be given effect, in the court’s
discretion and in the absence of a showing that enforcement of such a clause
would be unreasonable. (Smith, Valentino & Smith, Inc. v. Superior Court
(1976) 17 Cal.3d 491, 495-496.) “Unreasonable” means the “forum selected would
be unavailable or unable to accomplish substantial justice.” (Id. at
494.) Importantly, “neither inconvenience nor additional expense in litigating
in the selected forum is part of the test of unreasonability.” (Id. at
496.) Plaintiff initially argues that Defendants Arrowhead and
YouZoom are also parties to this action and did not consent to the forum
selection clause. (Opp., p. 3:3-5.) Defendants Arrowhead and YouZoom, however,
have joined in the Motion and clearly do not oppose application of the forum
selection clause. Additionally, Defendants Arrowhead and YouZoom are so closely
related to the contractual relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant
NextGear that it is reasonable for them to be subjected to the forum selection
clause. This concern was addressed by the Court of Appeal: The key to the closely related test is
whether the nonsignatories were close to the contractual relationship, not
whether they were close to the third party signator. This makes sense because
the forum selection clause is part of the underlying contract, and it is the
contractual relationship gone awry that presumably spawns litigation and
activates the clause. Giving standing to all closely related entities honors
general principles of judicial economy by making all parties closely allied to
the contractual relationship accountable in the same forum, thereby abating a proliferation
of actions and inconsistent rulings. (Bugna v. Fike (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 229, 235 (citing
Ford Motor Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th
604, 614).) This case law also addresses Plaintiff’s concerns about
inconsistent adjudications by demonstrating that the forum selection clause at
issue here makes it possible to bring an action against all three Defendants in
the same forum. Plaintiff’s opposition itself demonstrates that Defendants
Arrowhead and YouZoom pass the closely related test. Plaintiff alleges that it
entered into a Demand Promissory Note and Loan and Security Agreement with
Defendant NextGear under which Plaintiff was required to obtain insurance for
certain inventory and provide Defendant NextGear with the certificate(s) of
insurance. (Opp., p. 3:3-5; Exh. 1, § 4(c).) Plaintiff allegedly complied with
its obligations by obtaining insurance from Defendant Arrowhead’s subsidiary,
Universal Underwriters Insurance Company. (Id. at p. 3:5-7.) Defendant
YouZoom was the agent of record on the certificate of insurance. (Id. at
p. 3:8.) Defendants Arrowhead or YouZoom was obligated to provide Defendant
NextGear with proof of the certificate of insurance so that Plaintiff would not
be enrolled and charged for Defendant NextGear’s Collateral Protection Program.
(Id. at p. 3:8-11.) Despite having obtained insurance as required,
Plaintiff was enrolled in Defendant NextGear’s Collateral Protection Program
and charged $11,982.95. (Id. at p. 3:12-17.) Plaintiff claims against Defendants Arrowhead and YouZoom
are based on their obligations to ensure Plaintiff demonstrated compliance with
its contractual obligations to Defendant NextGear. Without the loan agreement
with Defendant NextGear, there would no basis for Plaintiff’s relationship with
Defendants Arrowhead and YouZoom. Therefore, Defendants Arrowhead and YouZoom
are closely related to the contractual relationship between Plaintiff and
Defendant NextGear and equally subject to the forum selection clause. With all
three Defendants subject to the forum selection clause, Plaintiff has not shown
that enforcement of the clause would be unreasonable. Conclusion Motion of Defendant Nextgear
Capital, Inc., joined by Defendants Arrowhead General Insurance Agency Holding
Corp. and YouZoom Insurance Services, Inc., to Stay or Dismiss Action Based on
Forum Selection Clause is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF ANYTIME RENT A CAR, INC.’S
COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED. Court clerk to give notice.