J.G. v. Rustic Pathways, LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 15, 2024
• Docket: 5:22-cv-05666
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 J. G., individually and on behalf of JANE Case No. 22-cv-05666-EJD DOE, an individual, 9 ORDER REQUESTING PARTIES TO Plaintiff, CLARIFY ARGUMENTS RELATED 10 TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO v. DISMISS OR, ALTERNATIVELY, 11 TRANSFER VENUE; STAYING ALL RUSTIC PATHWAYS, LLC, et al., DEADLINES PENDING DECISION ON 12 MOTION Defendants. 13 Re: ECF No. 60 14 15 Currently pending before the Court is Defendants Rustic Pathways, LLC (“Rustic”) and 16 Sabot Family Companies’ (together, “Defendants”) motion to dismiss Plaintiff J.G.’s (“Plaintiff”) 17 First Amended Complaint for improper venue and failure to state a claim, or in the alternative to 18 transfer venue to the Northern District of Ohio based on a forum selection clause. See Mot., ECF 19 No. 60. Having evaluated the parties’ written submissions, the Court requests that the parties 20 clarify certain arguments related to venue, as described below. 21 The parties agree that Plaintiff signed an agreement with Rustic providing that any legal 22 action related to the events underlying this action “must be filed in state court in Lake County, 23 Ohio,” and that the Lake County, Ohio state court would be the “sole jurisdiction and venue for 24 any legal proceeding.” See Mot. 3–4 (citations omitted); see generally Opp’n 5–10, ECF No. 64. 25 Defendants argue that this forum selection clause requires either dismissal under Federal Rule of 26 Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), or transfer to the Northern District of Ohio 27 under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). See Mot. 4–10. In their reply brief, Defendants argue that the Court 1 should enforce the forum selection clause and transfer this action to the Lake County, Ohio state 2 court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 104(a). See Reply 5–6, ECF No. 66. Plaintiff argues that a forum 3 selection clause does not provide a basis to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 12(b)(3), and that a transfer of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is not appropriate because the 5 forum selection clause is invalid. See Opp’n 5–10. 6 The parties’ arguments do not match the relevant legal framework. First—as Plaintiff 7 notes and Defendants appear to concede, see Opp’n 5–6; Reply 5–6—a forum selection clause 8 does not render the current venue “wrong” or “improper” such that dismissal under Federal Rule 9 of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) or 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) is appropriate. Atl. Marine Const. Co., Inc. v. 10 U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49, 59 (2013). 11 Second, and more confoundingly, the forum selection clause here provides for a forum in 12 Ohio state court, but Defendants seek a transfer to the Northern District of Ohio (which the Court 13 understands encompasses Lake County). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may, “[f]or 14 the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice . . . transfer any civil action to 15 any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to 16 which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Supreme Court has stated that forum 17 selection clauses pointing to another federal forum are to be analyzed under this statute. See Atl. 18 Marine, 571 U.S. at 54, 59, 62. However, § 1404(a) does not apply to forum selection clauses 19 pointing to a state or foreign forum; in such a circumstance, the forum non conveniens doctrine 20 applies. See Atl. Marine, 571 U.S. at 60–61. The forum non conveniens doctrine is a mechanism 21 for dismissal, not transfer, so that the action may be refiled in the proper forum. See id. at 60. 22 To sum up the foregoing: 23 • A forum selection clause is not a basis for dismissal for improper venue under 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) or 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 25 • The mechanism for transfer to another district court is provided by 28 U.S.C. § 26 1404(a), and a forum selection clause pointing to another federal forum is analyzed 27 within this framework. 1 e A forum selection clause pointing to a state forum is analyzed under the forum non 2 conveniens doctrine, and if enforced results in dismissal rather than transfer. 3 Here, based on the forum selection clause pointing to Ohio state court, Defendants 4 requested dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) or 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), or 5 transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Plaintiff correctly noted that the former argument is 6 || impermissible under Atlantic Marine, but then engaged with the § 1404(a) analysis and included 7 certain arguments—such as the difficulty of litigating in multiple venues—that now have little to 8 || no relevance following the settlement with the individual defendants. However, the Court may 9 not enforce the forum selection clause by transferring—the forum non conveniens doctrine does 10 || not provide for transfer, and the forum selection clause does not point to a federal forum—and 11 does not have before it arguments related to dismissal for forum non conveniens. Nonetheless, the 12 || Court is aware that “a valid forum-selection clause should be given controlling weight in all but 5 13 the most exceptional cases.” Atl. Marine, 571 U.S. at 63 (alterations and citation omitted). 14 Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendants and Plaintiff each file 3 15 a supplemental brief by April 22, 2024, related to the application of the forum non conveniens 16 || doctrine to this action given the forum selection clause, and to the propriety of transfer to the 3 17 Northern District of Ohio under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for any reason other than the forum selection 18 clause. The briefs are not to exceed five pages and shall be formatted in accordance with the 19 Court’s standing orders, including with respect to the spacing of footnotes. 20 The Court additionally STAYS all other pending deadlines in this action pending its 21 resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: April 15, 2024 24

EDWARD J. DAVILA 26 United States District Judge 27 28 Case No.: 22-cv-05666-EJD ORDER REQUESTING SUPPL. BRIEFING RE VENUE