Litigation in Missouri is not unreasonable or unfair. Accordingly, based upon the evidence and arguments of the parties, the Court concludes that the forum selection agreement is enforceable and is to be enforced. The motion will be granted to stay this action.

(Dismissal is improper at this time in the event that Missouri actually proves to be unavailable. The Court will set a hearing to address when this action may be dismissed.)

(2) Misrepresentations in Moving Papers

In its May 6 tentative ruling, the Court noted a concerning feature of the motion. On page 7 of the motion, counsel states (emphasis in original): "Lastly, the As-Is Disclosure contains a Missouri venue provision that states: 'Any disputes arising under or related to this Agreement shall be brought exclusively in the state or federal Courts located in St. Louis County, Missouri, and the parties hereby consent to such jurisdiction and venue. ['] (See Declaration of Paul P. Weishaar and Exhibit A) "

As quoted above, both the declaration of Paul Weishaar and the attached exhibit A contain language that is substantially different from that which is represented to the Court by counsel for Defendants in the memorandum in support of the motion. Although the agreement does contain a forum selection provision using weaker language, the above language in the memorandum misrepresents the operative language of the agreement and does so with emphasis on the misrepresented terms.

The May 6 tentative stated that the Court required an explanation. On June 3, 2026, attorney Andrew W. Wyatt filed a declaration addressing the Court's concerns. In this declaration Wyatt confirms that he quoted language describing the forum selection agreement that differed from the actual language contained in the parties' agreement attached to the declaration of Paul P. Weishaar. (Wyatt decl., P.P. 3, 4.)

Wyatt states that the discrepancy was inadvertent and was not intended to mislead the Court. (Wyatt decl., P.P. 5, 7.) Wyatt apologizes for this inaccurate quotation. (Wyatt decl., P. 8.)

While the Court appreciates Wyatt's acceptance of responsibility for the misstatement of the quotation, the statement that the misquotation was a matter of inadvertence is an incomplete explanation. The Court's principal concern relates to the possible use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and a failure to review the product of AI.

"A lawyer shall not: [P.] (1) knowingly* make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal* or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal* by the lawyer." (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 3.3(a)(1).)

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Other rulings by Thomas Anderle Judge Thomas Anderle dossier Other Motion for Summary Judgment in SANTABARBARA All SANTABARBARA County rulings Other Civil Law & Motion cases

Related rulings

by semantic similarity

Source

Print-friendly view

"The lawyer's duty of candor to the tribunal cannot be delegated to AI. The use (or ability) of AI to research, draft, summarize, or generate legal analysis does not diminish the lawyer's personal responsibility for the truthfulness and legal sufficiency of any submission to the Court. In that respect, a lawyer must review all outputs produced using AI tools for accuracy, including but not limited to analysis and citations to authority before submission to the Court, and must independently verify and correct any errors or misleading statements made to the Court, regardless of whether such outputs were generated with or without real-time human direction." (State Bar, Com. on Professional Responsibility & Conduct, Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law (May 14, 2026) com. to rules 3.1, 3.3, p. 9.)

It is unclear whether AI was involved in the misstatement here, but there are indications that concern the Court. The misstated contract language is stated as a quotation with a citation that one would not expect if the error were merely a mischaracterization of the actual contract language. Of particular note is the emphasis by bolding and italicizing specific text to be called to the Court's attention. In addition, case citations in the moving papers are followed by asterisks, which is a feature of certain citation checking software used in conjunction with AI generated text.

If the misstatement of the contractual text was generated by AI, the Court wants to know that expressly. If the misstatement of the contractual text was created by some other type of error or errors, the Court wants to know that expressly. Counsel will be required to appear at the hearing on this motion to address this issue.

Tentative Ruling: Mechanics Bank v. California Organic Fertilizers, Inc., et al.

Case Type Civil Law & Motion

Hearing Date / Time Wed, 06/03/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings Motion of Plaintiff Mechanics Bank for Summary Judgment or Alternatively for Summary Adjudication

For Plaintiff Mechanics Bank: Tom R. Normandin, Prenovost, Normandin, Dawe & Rocha

For Defendant California Organic Fertilizers, Inc., and Timothy Stemwedel: Daren A. Stemwedel

Unless counsel appears at the hearing of this motion and provides good cause otherwise, this matter is transferred to the Cook Division of this Court (Santa Maria) and the motion for summary judgment or for summary adjudication will be reset for hearing following transfer.

"For the purpose of these local rules, it shall be assumed that Santa Barbara County has been divided geographically into two separate regions hereinafter referred to as 'South County' and 'North County.' " (Santa Barbara County Superior Court Local Rules, rule 201.)

"[General Rule] When, under California law, 'North County' would be a 'proper county' for venue purposes, all filings for such matters shall be in the appropriate division of the Clerk's office in North County. All other filings shall be made in the Clerk's office in the appropriate division of the Court in South County." (Santa Barbara County Superior Court Local Rules, rule 203(a).)

"[Designation and Change of Venue] In electronic filings, the party making the filing shall designate the appropriate division of the Court based upon subdivisions (a) and (b) of this rule. The title of the Court required to be placed on the first page of documents pursuant to CRC 2.111 includes the name of the appropriate Court division. Any filing erroneously made in a division of the Court may be transferred to the appropriate division upon motion of any party or on the court's own motion." (Santa Barbara County Superior Court Local Rules, rule 203(c).)

"Subject to subdivision (b) [which is not applicable here], if a defendant has contracted to perform an obligation in a particular county, the superior court in the county where the obligation is to be performed, where the contract in fact was entered into, or where the defendant or any defendant resides at the commencement of the action is a proper court for the trial of an action founded on that obligation, and the county where the obligation is incurred is the county where it is to be performed, unless there is a special contract in writing to the contrary." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 395, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff Mechanic Bank's complaint asserts liability based upon promissory notes, commercial guaranties, security agreements, and business loan agreements. Each of these agreements on their face were entered into, and to be performed, in Santa Maria in North County. (Merrifield-Olivia decl., exhibits 1 at p. 7, 2 at p. 11, 3 at p. 16, 4 at p. 23, 5 at p. 31, 6 at p. 35, 7 at p. 40, 8 at p. 47.)

No defendant is shown to be a resident in South County. Consequently, venue for this action is properly in North County.

The court notes that plaintiff failed to file the Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum required by Santa Barbara County Superior Court Local Rules, rule 1310, which would have identified the venue issue earlier. To the extent counsel appears to argue venue should remain in South County, counsel will need to explain the failure to file the required addendum.

Tentative Ruling: Malkiat Singh Mand v Albertsons Companies Inc