When a defendant moves to enforce a forum selection clause in a case in which the plaintiff asserts non-waivable statutory rights under California law, the defendant bears the burden of showing that the selected forum will apply California law or, if not, that it will afford the plaintiff as good if not better rights under the law that it will apply. A defendant does not satisfy that burden by stipulating that the selected court may apply California law and having the trial court enter a stay so it can reassert jurisdiction if the selected jurisdiction does not apply California law–at least when, as in this case, the contract also contains a choice of law clause specifying non-California law. In that circumstance, the stipulation and stay operate as a de facto severance of the invalid choice of law clause. And allowing a party to escape the effects of drafting invalid contract provisions is against California public policy since only savvy litigants will challenge the invalid clause, leaving the rest without their unwaivable statutory rights.