Court of Appeals hears dispute over forum-selection clauses in Associated Petroleum v. Road Warrior

The Court of Appeals, Division 2, heard oral argument on March 4 in a petition for discretionary review over venue in Associated Petroleum Products v. Road Warrior (case no. 61771-4).

Sean Small, counsel for petitioners Road Warrior, Kamiakin Wheeler and Venom Wholesale, told the panel that the trial court erred by reading venue into the complaint and by conflating personal jurisdiction with forum-selection provisions. "None of the applicable contracts placed venue in Pierce County," Small said, urging the court to accept review under the b(4) interlocutory-certification standard because the issue is controlling and could be waived if not resolved now.

Tim Snyder, counsel for respondent Associated Petroleum Products, said the trial court reasonably considered extrinsic evidence — declarations and the parties’ business locations — and concluded the parties intended litigation in the appropriate Tacoma court, which Snyder described as the Superior Court rather than a limited district court. "This case presents really a garden variety question of contract interpretation of a venue clause in a commercial fuel supply agreement," he said, arguing discretionary review would require resolving factual findings and would not materially advance termination of the litigation.

The question before the appellate court centers on how to read conflicting venue provisions across multiple agreements: the petitioners emphasize a primary supply agreement that references "district courts of the city of Tacoma," while the respondent points to surrounding facts and statutory venue rules supporting Pierce County. Snyder also told the panel that statutory venue could attach to Pierce County because the plaintiff is headquartered there and business for the contract reached into Pierce County.

The petitioners warned the panel that if appellate review were delayed until after final judgment, the venue argument might be waived or deemed moot. Small also said the record includes a Yakima Nation business and transactions occurring on tribal land, noting a tribal forum could be relevant to venue analysis.

The court asked detailed questions about the governing standard for interlocutory review, including whether the matter meets the b(4) certification factors and how appellate precedent applies when extrinsic evidence was considered by the trial court. Counsel on both sides cited state decisions and doctrinal lines in arguing whether the dispute presents a pure legal question or requires fact-bound review.

After rebuttal and additional questioning, Commissioner Carl Bridal said the court would take the matter under advisement and issue a ruling as soon as practicable.

What happens next: The Court of Appeals will circulate a written decision deciding whether to grant discretionary review and, if granted, the proper forum for the case. If the court declines review, the trial court's venue ruling will stand unless the parties raise venue again post-judgment with a showing of material prejudice.