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

D. Nevada

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

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided April 8, 2026·No. 2:25-cv-01250·Unknown

Opinion

* * *

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

Defendant(s).

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

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

* * *

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

Defendant(s).

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

Giocar America, Inc. v. Industrias Galfer S.A., (D. Nev. 2026).

Pincite

Giocar America, Inc. v. Industrias Galfer S.A. (Giocar America, Inc. v. Industrias Galfer S.A.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related