Giocar America, Inc. v. Industrias Galfer S.A.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 8, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01250
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 GIOCAR AMERICA, INC., a Nevada Case No.2:25-CV-1250 JCM (DJA) corporation, 8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 9 v. 10 INDUSTRIAS GALFER S.A,, a Spanish 11 Sociedad Anonima,

12 Defendant(s).

13 14 Before the court is defendant Industrias Galfer S.A.’s motion to dismiss the amended 15 complaint. (ECF No. 31). Defendant contends that the case should be dismissed for forum non 16 conveniens because the parties executed a distribution agreement containing a forum selection 17 clause identifying Spain as the forum. 18 Courts generally apply federal contract law to interpret a forum selection clause, unless the 19 agreement containing the clause dictates otherwise. See Sun v. Advanced China Healthcare, Inc., 20 901 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir 2018); E. J. Gallo Winery v. Andina Licores S.A., 446 F.3d 984, 994 21 (9th Cir. 2006); Abemarle Corp. v. Astrazeneca UK Ltd., 628 F.3d 643, 651 (4th Cir. 2010); Yavuz 22 v. 61 MM, Ltd., 465 F.3d 418, 430 (10th Cir. 2006) (holding that courts should “ordinarily honor” 23 an international commercial agreement’s forum selection clause as construed under the choice of 24 law provision); Stellia Ltd. v. B+S Card Serv. v. GmbH, No. 2:12-cv-01099, 2013 WL 1195709, 25 at *5 (D. Nev. Mar. 22, 2013) (validity of forum selection clause governed by jurisdiction specified 26 in choice of law provision). 27 Here, the parties expressly agreed that the distribution agreement “shall be governed by 28 Spanish legislation.” (ECF No. 31, Ex. 2 ¶ 25.1). Thus, the forum selection clause must be 1 assessed under Spanish law. See, e.g., E. J. Gallo Winery, 446 F.3d at 994. 2 One of the issues presented to the court is the scope of the agreement (i.e., does the clause 3 cover the disputes in issue). This is a matter of contract interpretation; however, the only briefing 4 that the parties have provided on Spanish law concerns whether the clause is mandatory or 5 permissive. 6 ACCORDINGLY, the parties are HEREBY ORDERED to provide supplemental 7 briefing on the interpretation of the scope of the forum selection clause, as it applies to the claims 8 in issue, under Spanish law. There is no need to address Bremen’s “exceptional reasons” that a 9 forum selection clause may not be enforced, as this is a separate concern. See 407 U.S. 1, 92 10 (1972)). Parties are limited to four (4) pages each and must submit their briefs within seven 11 days of this order. 12 DATED April 8, 2026. 13 ________________________________________ 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28