Hansen v. Smoke Guard California, Inc.

Background

Vincent Hansen filed an employment lawsuit against Smoke Guard California, Inc. in the California Superior Court for Contra Costa County in February 2023. The complaint asserted twelve claims, including discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, breach of contract, and failure to pay wages and expenses. Smoke Guard removed the case to federal court on April 26, 2023, relying on diversity jurisdiction. The opinion states that Hansen is a California citizen, while Smoke Guard is incorporated in Nevada and has its principal place of business in Idaho.

The parties’ arguments

Hansen sought remand, meaning an order sending the case back to state court. He relied on a forum-selection clause in the employment agreement, which stated that the parties agreed to submit to the personal jurisdiction and venue of a court with subject-matter jurisdiction in Contra Costa County, California. Hansen argued that this language required the case to be heard in state court and that any ambiguity should be interpreted against Smoke Guard, which drafted the agreement. He also sought attorney fees for bringing and briefing the remand motion.

Smoke Guard argued that the clause was permissive rather than mandatory. In its view, the clause allowed the case to be brought in Contra Costa County but did not require that result or exclude other courts.

Court’s analysis

Judge Seeborg compared the clause with Ninth Circuit decisions distinguishing between consent to jurisdiction and language requiring exclusive venue. The court found that the agreement did not state or suggest that jurisdiction or venue in Contra Costa County was exclusive. The court also noted that the agreement used mandatory language elsewhere when it stated that California law “shall” govern, be construed, and be enforced. The absence of similar mandatory language in the forum-selection clause showed that the clause was permissive, not mandatory.

The court concluded that the clause meant neither party could contest jurisdiction or venue in a court in Contra Costa County, but it did not prevent litigation elsewhere. The court did not need to decide Smoke Guard’s alternative argument that venue was proper because the Northern District of California is a court “in Contra Costa County.”

Ruling

Judge Richard Seeborg denied Hansen’s motion for remand. The court consequently denied Hansen’s request for attorney fees. The opinion is a procedural order because it resolved where the case would proceed and the related fee request without deciding the underlying employment claims.