California Supreme Court Watch

#23-247 EpicentRx, Inc. v. Superior Court, S282521. (D081670; 95 Cal.App.5th 890, mod. 95 Cal.App.5th 1320a; San Diego County Superior Court; 37-2022-00015228-CUBT-CTL.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of mandate in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Is a forum selection clause enforceable when a party’s right under California state law to a jury trial for their civil claims would not apply in the exclusive forum identified by the clause?

Petition for review granted: 12/13/2023

Case fully briefed: 3/04/2024

Cause argued and submitted: 5/06/2025

Opinion filed: Judgment reversed: 7/21/2025

See the Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Petition for Review.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (EpicentRx, Inc. v. Superior Court (2025) 18 Cal.5th 58.)

“Both lower courts held that the forum selection clauses were unenforceable. The lower courts reasoned that, if plaintiff’s claims were litigated in California, plaintiff would have a right to a jury trial, but the Delaware Court of Chancery does not recognize a similar right. In their view, because the forum selection clauses would effectively deprive plaintiff of its right to a jury trial, similar to a predispute jury trial waiver, enforcement of the clauses would be contrary to California public policy….

We granted review to consider whether the lower courts were correct to decline enforcement of the forum selection clauses on this basis. We conclude they were not…. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand for further proceedings in that court.”

Chief Justice Guerrero authored the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans concurred.