Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Until the California Supreme Court reviews Alexander, attorneys will need to review their contracts to see whether the parties’ choice of venue is supported by language beyond a venue-selection clause. Even if Alexander precludes courts from transferring venue based solely on a venue-selection clause, a court deciding a post- Alexander motion to transfer may give weight to other contract provisions that bear on venue. Notably, parties can create conclusive presumptions in their contracts’ recitals of fact. See Cal. Evid. Code �622 (“The facts recited in a written instrument are conclusively presumed to be true as between the parties thereto.”). Thus, when negotiating contracts for their clients, attorneys may consider addressing various venue factors in the contract recitals. For example, to set venue for potential breach of contract cases, the recitals can establish the place where the contract was negotiated, accepted and performed. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. �395. In an appropriate case, if it is not already obvious, the recitals can state that the contract relates to the “determination in any form” of a “right or interest” in real property located in a particular county. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. �392. Attorneys may even try to include a recital that litigation in a chosen county would promote “the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice,” paving the way for a discretionary change of venue. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. �397. Before negotiating any contract in which venue selection may be an issue, attorneys for corporations or unincorporated associations will want to confirm that their clients designated their current principal place of business in their corporate filings to establish the correct venue for possible actions against them. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. ��395.2 (unincorporated associations) and 395.5 (corporations). These practice tips demonstrate the fallacy with the Alexander court’s refusal to acknowledge that venue-selection clauses provide just as much convenience and certainty as forum-selection clauses. If courts permit parties the certainty and convenience of selecting the forums for resolving their disputes, they should allow parties to select the venue as well.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.