SOUTHWALL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AND V-KOOL, INC., A TEXAS CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
HURRICANE GLASS SHIELD, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that forum selection clauses should be enforced unless it is unreasonable or unjust to do so, and mere inconvenience or additional expense does not meet this standard.
[1] Forum selection clauses in contracts should be enforced unless trial in the contractual forum will be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that the party seeking to avoi…
[2] Mere inconvenience or additional expense does not render a forum selection clause unreasonable.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHurricane Glass Shield sued Southwall Technologies and V-Kool in Florida, despite contracts containing mandatory forum selection clauses for Californi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mandatory Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
In these consolidated, interlocutory appeals, Southwall Technologies, Inc., and V-Kool, Inc., challenge the trial court’s denial of their motions to dismiss a breach of contract suit filed against them by Hurricane Glass Shield. We reverse.
Hurricane signed a contract with South-wall containing a mandatory forum selection clause that set venue for disputes in California. Hurricane signed a contract with V-Kool containing a mandatory forum selection clause that set venue for disputes in Texas. Notwithstanding these contractual provisions, Hurricane filed suit in Florida against Southwall and V-Kool, who then moved to dismiss for improper venue. At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Hurricane argued that it would be unreasonable to force it to conduct separate trials in California and Texas. The trial court accepted this argument and denied the motions to dismiss.
In Manrique v. Fabbri, 493 So. 2d 437, 440 (Fla.1986), the supreme court held that forum selection clauses should be enforced unless it would be unreasonable or unjust to do so. The supreme court further stated that the test of unreasonableness is not mere inconvenience or additional expense. Forum selection clauses in contracts should be enforced unless “trial in the contractual forum will be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that [the party seeking to avoid the forum selection clause] will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court.” 493 So. 2d at 440 n. 4. Hurricane’s reasons for filing suit in Florida related solely to convenience and expense. Nothing was argued that rose to the level of unreasonableness described by the supreme court in Manrique. See also Straight, Inc. v. Yorba Linda Commercenter Assocs., 594 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (holding that trial court abused its discretion in refusing to enforce forum selection clause). Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to dismiss the case based on improper venue.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
DAVIS and KELLY, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Manrique v. Giorgio Fabbri, 493 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 1986)
- Straight, Inc. v. Yorba Linda Commercenter Assocs., 594 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)