This decision denies a writ of mandate to defendant finding it did not prove either a clear and indisputable right to relief or that it would suffer irreparable harm if forced to await final judgment to appeal. Orange sought to reverse denial of its motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens based on the forum selection clause in a non-disclosure agreement it had entered into with the plaintiff. The decision holds that the district court did not clearly err in holding that the forum selection clause was not triggered since the plaintiff’s claims did not arise out of the non-disclosure agreement but from Orange’s alleged theft of plaintiff’s software application by means apart from information shared under the non-disclosure agreement. Also, the remedy by appeal from a final judgment was not inadequate merely because Orange would incur large litigation expenses before it could appeal. Litigation cost makes the remedy by appeal inadequate only when the party cannot afford the litigation expense. Orange, a large telecommunications company, could not make that showing.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Wallace, J.); April 8, 2016; 2016 WL 1392381