Opinion ID: 1039181
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Forum Selection Provision

Text: The arbitration agreement provides, in part, The arbitration shall be conducted in San Francisco, California. CP at 49. Brown and Hiett argue that this provision is substantively unconscionable because anybody wishing to arbitrate a claim against MHN would have to locate local counsel and travel to California at great personal expense. They claim that this provision is one-sided in that those signing the agreements would be less likely to have resources to travel and obtain local counsel than MHN. We disagree and find that the forum selection provision is not substantively unconscionable. Forum selection provisions in arbitration agreements are evaluated for whether the term is unduly oppressive. Bolter v. Superior Court, 87 Cal. App. 4th 900, 909, 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 888 (2001). In Bolter, the court 12 Brown v. MHN Government Services, et al., No. 87953-2 severed an unconscionable arbitration agreement clause selecting Utah as the forum. After reviewing extensive declarations from the parties concerning their financial circumstances, family situations, and business arrangements, the court recognized that [u]nder the circumstances, the 'place and manner' terms are unduly oppressive. Id. Here, the record is devoid of similar declarations concerning the parties' circumstances. Brown and Hiett have not alleged similar facts concerning the hardship of arbitrating in California. We accordingly find that the forum selection provision is not substantively unconscionable.