Opinion ID: 178602
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Witness Expenses

Text: Kepas argues that the requirements set forth in Armendariz are also violated by the forum selection clause’s effect on witness travel expenses. He asserts that the forum selection clause in the Arbitration Agreement could require 9 employees to incur unreasonable witness travel expenses in order for their witnesses to travel to distant arbitration proceedings. Specifically, he argues that the forum selection clause mandates that the arbitration proceedings for covered claims occur in Santa Clara County, California, while his relevant witnesses are located in Utah. As witness travel costs are not unique to arbitration, Kepas’s challenge to the forum selection clause and its related effect on witness travel expenses is not compelling. In fact, courts consider these costs when evaluating the reasonableness of forum selection clauses in conjunction with litigation in general. See Smith, Valentino & Smith, Inc. v. Superior Court, 551 P.2d 1206, 1209 (Cal. 1976). Thus, an employee’s potential to incur witness travel costs does not violate the Armendariz minimum requirements. Rather, Kepas’s argument implicates the reasonableness of the forum selection clause itself, which we will also address.