Pierce Law Group, LLP v. Jaleh Factor, et al.

Summary

The Third District Court of Appeal of Florida reverses a non-final order denying Pierce Law Group’s motion to dismiss for improper venue in a legal malpractice action. The court holds that the representation agreement’s California choice-of-law language does not limit the applicability of its separate mandatory venue-selection clause, which requires disputes to be resolved in Los Angeles, California. The case is remanded with instructions to grant the motion to dismiss for improper venue.

Holdings

1. The phrase providing that the agreement would be governed by California laws applicable to contracts entered into and performed entirely in California is a choice-of-law clarification, not a condition limiting the applicability of the entire agreement or its venue-selection clause.
2. The agreement's clause stating that venue for resolution of any disputes between the parties would be Los Angeles, California is a mandatory venue-selection clause that must be enforced absent a showing that the designated forum is unreasonable or unjust.
3. The court had jurisdiction to review the non-final order denying the motion to dismiss for improper venue.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the phrase in the agreement providing for application of California law to contracts entered into and performed entirely in California limited the applicability of the separate Los Angeles venue-selection clause.
2. Whether the mandatory venue-selection clause requiring disputes to be resolved in Los Angeles, California was enforceable and required dismissal for improper venue.
3. Whether the court had jurisdiction to review the non-final order denying the motion to dismiss for improper venue.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded