Vita Planning & Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc.

240 Cal. App. 4th 763 | California Court of Appeal | 2015

reversedCited 7 timesSTANDARDTexas
View on Court Website

Holding Summary

Section 410.42 bars enforcement of a forum selection clause requiring California subcontractors to litigate construction disputes outside California, even when the subcontractor is a design professional rather than a traditional builder.

Section 410.42 prevents enforcement of the forum selection clause.

California Court of Appeal, 2015

Related Cases

Gall v. United States

2007enforced

Appellate courts must review all sentences under an abuse-of-discretion standard regardless of whether they fall inside or outside the Guidelines range, and cannot require extraordinary circumstances to justify sentences outside the range.

Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.

2013reversed

Forum-selection clauses in federal contracts are enforced through §1404(a) transfer motions, not §1406(a) dismissals, and must be given controlling weight except in exceptional circumstances.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy

2002voided

Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.

Piotrowski v. City of Houston

2001reversed

Municipal liability under § 1983 requires proof of official policy as the moving force; isolated employee misconduct insufficient, and equal protection claim time-barred.

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena

1995remanded

Federal race-based classifications must be analyzed under strict scrutiny regardless of whether they benefit or burden minorities, and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection obligation equals the Fourteenth Amendment's.

Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville

1993remanded

An association of contractors has standing to challenge a minority set-aside ordinance without proving any member would have won a contract absent the ordinance; the injury is denial of equal competitive opportunity, not loss of a specific contract.