Deleon Guerrero v. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands State Board of Education

Northern Mariana Islands

Deleon Guerrero v. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands State Board of Education

CourtDistrict Court, Northern Mariana Islands

DecidedMarch 30, 2018

Docket1:18-cv-00006

StatusUnknown

This text of Deleon Guerrero v. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands State Board of Education (Deleon Guerrero v. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands State Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, Northern Mariana Islands primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Deleon Guerrero v. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands State Board of Education, (nmid 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

FILED Clerk District Court MAR 30 2018 for the Northern pee Islands By FX IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (Deputy Clerk) | FOR THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS 2 3 CYNTHIA DELEON GUERRERO, Case No.: 18-cv-00006 A Plaintiff, 5 vs DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 6 || CNMISTATE BOARD OF EDUCATION er | PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND al., 1 Defendants. 8 9 I. INTRODUCTION 10 Plaintiff Cynthia DeLeon Guerrero has filed a civil rights action against her former employer, 11 the CNMI Board of Education and members of the Board. (See Compl., ECF No. 1 at 4-24.) 12 B Defendants removed the case from the CNMI Superior Court to this Court. (Notice of Removal, ECF

14 || No. 1.) Plaintiff now seeks to remand. (Mot. to Remand, ECF No. 3.) 15 The motion has been fully briefed, and the Court heard argument on March 29, 2018. Having 16 |) considered the arguments of the parties and reviewed the record, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED IN "7 PART and DENIED IN PART. 8 Il. BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff was employed as the Chief Executive Officer of the CNMI Public School System. 20 (Compl. □□ 4-5, ECF No. 1 at 5.) Her employment contract permitted the Board of Education to 21 terminate her without cause upon the affirmative vote of three members. (Jd. {| 14, ECF No. 1 at 7.) 22 33 The contract also included a choice-of-forum clause, stating, “Any action brought for the enforcement

of this contract shall be brought in the courts of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 1 only.” (Contract ¶ 14, ECF No. 1 at 20.) 2 After her termination, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants asserting four causes of action, 3 4 claiming that they violated her due process rights, conspired to violate her due process rights, 5 wrongfully terminated her, and breached her employment contract. (See generally Compl.) 6 Defendants removed the case from the CNMI Superior Court to this Court. (Notice of Removal, ECF 7 No. 1.) Plaintiff now seeks to enforce the choice-of-forum clause in the contract and requests the 8 Court remand to the superior court. 9 III. LEGAL STANDARD 10 A choice of forum clause in a contract may be enforced through the doctrine of forum non 11 conveniens. Atl. Marine Constr. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49, 134 12 S. Ct. 568, 580 (2013). Typically, the doctrine requires a court to consider the plaintiff’s choice of 13 14 forum, factors relating to the parties’ private interests, and factors relating to the public interest. The 15 public interest factors include “the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; the local 16 interest in having localized controversies decided at home; and the interest in having the trial of a 17 diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law.” Id. at 581 n.6. 18 However, when a contract includes a valid choice-of-forum clause, the forum selection clause 19 “should be given controlling weight in all but the most exceptional cases,” and the forum non 20 conveniens analysis is modified to recognize that a valid forum selection clause is “bargained for by 21 the parties and embodies their expectations.” In re Orange, S.A., 818 F.3d 956, 961 (9th Cir. 2016) 22 (quoting Atl. Marine Constr. Co., 571 U.S. at 581). The analysis is modified in three ways: (1) “the 23 plaintiff’s choice of forum merits no weight”; (2) the court may not “consider arguments about the 1 parties’ private interests”; and (3) “transfer of venue will not carry with it the original venue’s choice 2 of law rules.” Id. 3 4 IV. DISCUSSION 5 A. Whether to Remand the Federal and State Claims 6 Plaintiff seeks remand of the federal due process and conspiracy to violate due process claims 7 as well as the state law claims, contending that all of the claims arise out of her employment contract 8 and therefore fall within the choice-of-forum clause. (Reply Br. 3–4, ECF No. 15.) 9 Plaintiff provides no authority to support the position that her federal claims, which are 10 individual civil rights claims, are attempts to enforce the contract. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, 11 the Ninth Circuit has stated, an individual’s right “not to be deprived of employment that he or she has 12 been guaranteed is more easily characterized as a civil right, meant to be protected by section 1983.” 13 14 San Bernardino Physicians’ Servs. Medical Grp., Inc. v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 825 F.2d 1404, 15 1409 (9th Cir. 1987). Thus, even though the property interest at issue is a contract, the federal claims 16 are not actions “brought for enforcement of” the contract, but rather are for enforcement of Plaintiff’s 17 civil rights. The federal claims are therefore not governed by the choice-of-forum clause. 18 The parties do not dispute that the civil rights claims are federal questions. Accordingly, the 19 federal claims were properly removed from the CNMI Superior Court, and Plaintiff’s motion to 20 remand them is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (“any civil action brought in a State court of which 21 the district courts . . . have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant”); Borough of W. 22 Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 785 (3d Cir. 1995) (finding section 1983 case properly removed 23 because it raises federal question). 1 As to the state law claims, Defendants urge the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 2 over them because, among other things, the allegations for the wrongful termination and breach of 3 4 contract claims show that Plaintiff is not attempting to enforce the contract. (Opp. Br. 5–8, ECF No. 5 12.) However, whether the pleadings are sufficient or fail to state a claim is a merits issue and does 6 not affect whether Plaintiff is attempting to seek enforcement of the contract. These claims, therefore, 7 are governed by the choice-of-forum clause. 8 As set forth above, absent exceptional circumstances, a valid choice-of-forum clause is 9 controlling as to where a claim may be filed. The parties do not dispute the validity of the clause and 10 do not point to exceptional circumstances that would justify this Court disregarding it. Further, the 11 Court finds that the interests of the Commonwealth in adjudicating and enforcing its government 12 agency contracts governed by Commonwealth law outweigh the interests of this Court in deciding the 13 14 case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is granted as to the wrongful termination and breach of contract 15 claims, and they are remanded to the superior court. 16 B. Plaintiff’s Request for Attorney Fees and Costs 17 Plaintiff requests attorney fees and costs resulting from this motion on the ground that it was 18 objectively unreasonable for Defendants to remove this case from superior court. (Mot. to Remand 19 3–4.) 20 As discussed above, Defendants reasonably removed this case from superior court because the 21 due process and conspiracy to violate due process claims are federal questions and fall outside the 22 scope of the choice-of-forum clause. Accordingly, the request for attorney fees and costs is DENIED. 23 V. CONCLUSION

5 For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED IN

3 ||PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s third and fourth causes of action in her Complaint are 4 || ordered remanded to the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 5 || Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees and costs is DENIED. 6 The first two causes of action in the Complaint will be the sole claims subject to Defendants’ 7 || motion to dismiss (ECF No.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FILED Clerk District Court MAR 30 2018 for the Northern pee Islands By FX IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (Deputy Clerk) | FOR THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS 2 3 CYNTHIA DELEON GUERRERO, Case No.: 18-cv-00006 A Plaintiff, 5 vs DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 6 || CNMISTATE BOARD OF EDUCATION er | PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND al., 1 Defendants. 8 9 I. INTRODUCTION 10 Plaintiff Cynthia DeLeon Guerrero has filed a civil rights action against her former employer, 11 the CNMI Board of Education and members of the Board. (See Compl., ECF No. 1 at 4-24.) 12 B Defendants removed the case from the CNMI Superior Court to this Court. (Notice of Removal, ECF

14 || No. 1.) Plaintiff now seeks to remand. (Mot. to Remand, ECF No. 3.) 15 The motion has been fully briefed, and the Court heard argument on March 29, 2018. Having 16 |) considered the arguments of the parties and reviewed the record, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED IN "7 PART and DENIED IN PART. 8 Il. BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff was employed as the Chief Executive Officer of the CNMI Public School System. 20 (Compl. □□ 4-5, ECF No. 1 at 5.) Her employment contract permitted the Board of Education to 21 terminate her without cause upon the affirmative vote of three members. (Jd. {| 14, ECF No. 1 at 7.) 22 33 The contract also included a choice-of-forum clause, stating, “Any action brought for the enforcement

of this contract shall be brought in the courts of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 1 only.” (Contract ¶ 14, ECF No. 1 at 20.) 2 After her termination, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants asserting four causes of action, 3 4 claiming that they violated her due process rights, conspired to violate her due process rights, 5 wrongfully terminated her, and breached her employment contract. (See generally Compl.) 6 Defendants removed the case from the CNMI Superior Court to this Court. (Notice of Removal, ECF 7 No. 1.) Plaintiff now seeks to enforce the choice-of-forum clause in the contract and requests the 8 Court remand to the superior court. 9 III. LEGAL STANDARD 10 A choice of forum clause in a contract may be enforced through the doctrine of forum non 11 conveniens. Atl. Marine Constr. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49, 134 12 S. Ct. 568, 580 (2013). Typically, the doctrine requires a court to consider the plaintiff’s choice of 13 14 forum, factors relating to the parties’ private interests, and factors relating to the public interest. The 15 public interest factors include “the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; the local 16 interest in having localized controversies decided at home; and the interest in having the trial of a 17 diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law.” Id. at 581 n.6. 18 However, when a contract includes a valid choice-of-forum clause, the forum selection clause 19 “should be given controlling weight in all but the most exceptional cases,” and the forum non 20 conveniens analysis is modified to recognize that a valid forum selection clause is “bargained for by 21 the parties and embodies their expectations.” In re Orange, S.A., 818 F.3d 956, 961 (9th Cir. 2016) 22 (quoting Atl. Marine Constr. Co., 571 U.S. at 581). The analysis is modified in three ways: (1) “the 23 plaintiff’s choice of forum merits no weight”; (2) the court may not “consider arguments about the 1 parties’ private interests”; and (3) “transfer of venue will not carry with it the original venue’s choice 2 of law rules.” Id. 3 4 IV. DISCUSSION 5 A. Whether to Remand the Federal and State Claims 6 Plaintiff seeks remand of the federal due process and conspiracy to violate due process claims 7 as well as the state law claims, contending that all of the claims arise out of her employment contract 8 and therefore fall within the choice-of-forum clause. (Reply Br. 3–4, ECF No. 15.) 9 Plaintiff provides no authority to support the position that her federal claims, which are 10 individual civil rights claims, are attempts to enforce the contract. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, 11 the Ninth Circuit has stated, an individual’s right “not to be deprived of employment that he or she has 12 been guaranteed is more easily characterized as a civil right, meant to be protected by section 1983.” 13 14 San Bernardino Physicians’ Servs. Medical Grp., Inc. v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 825 F.2d 1404, 15 1409 (9th Cir. 1987). Thus, even though the property interest at issue is a contract, the federal claims 16 are not actions “brought for enforcement of” the contract, but rather are for enforcement of Plaintiff’s 17 civil rights. The federal claims are therefore not governed by the choice-of-forum clause. 18 The parties do not dispute that the civil rights claims are federal questions. Accordingly, the 19 federal claims were properly removed from the CNMI Superior Court, and Plaintiff’s motion to 20 remand them is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (“any civil action brought in a State court of which 21 the district courts . . . have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant”); Borough of W. 22 Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 785 (3d Cir. 1995) (finding section 1983 case properly removed 23 because it raises federal question). 1 As to the state law claims, Defendants urge the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 2 over them because, among other things, the allegations for the wrongful termination and breach of 3 4 contract claims show that Plaintiff is not attempting to enforce the contract. (Opp. Br. 5–8, ECF No. 5 12.) However, whether the pleadings are sufficient or fail to state a claim is a merits issue and does 6 not affect whether Plaintiff is attempting to seek enforcement of the contract. These claims, therefore, 7 are governed by the choice-of-forum clause. 8 As set forth above, absent exceptional circumstances, a valid choice-of-forum clause is 9 controlling as to where a claim may be filed. The parties do not dispute the validity of the clause and 10 do not point to exceptional circumstances that would justify this Court disregarding it. Further, the 11 Court finds that the interests of the Commonwealth in adjudicating and enforcing its government 12 agency contracts governed by Commonwealth law outweigh the interests of this Court in deciding the 13 14 case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is granted as to the wrongful termination and breach of contract 15 claims, and they are remanded to the superior court. 16 B. Plaintiff’s Request for Attorney Fees and Costs 17 Plaintiff requests attorney fees and costs resulting from this motion on the ground that it was 18 objectively unreasonable for Defendants to remove this case from superior court. (Mot. to Remand 19 3–4.) 20 As discussed above, Defendants reasonably removed this case from superior court because the 21 due process and conspiracy to violate due process claims are federal questions and fall outside the 22 scope of the choice-of-forum clause. Accordingly, the request for attorney fees and costs is DENIED. 23 V. CONCLUSION

5 For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED IN

3 ||PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s third and fourth causes of action in her Complaint are 4 || ordered remanded to the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 5 || Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees and costs is DENIED. 6 The first two causes of action in the Complaint will be the sole claims subject to Defendants’ 7 || motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6), which is currently set for a hearing on April 26, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. (ECF No. 14.) IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 30th day of March, 2018.

12 L Mtns 14 RAMONA V. GLONA Chief Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Deleon Guerrero v. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands State Board of Education, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deleon-guerrero-v-commonwealth-of-the-northern-mariana-islands-state-board-nmid-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack