Kittitas Reclamation District v. Tetra Tech Inc

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: April 7, 2020
• Docket: 1:19-cv-03252
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE EASTERU N. S D. I SD TI RS IT CR TI C OT F C WO AU SR HT I NGTON 2 Apr 07, 2020

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 KITTITAS RECLAMATION No. 1:19-cv-03252-SMJ 5 DISTRICT, a municipal corporation,

6 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND FOR LACK OF 7 v. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 8 TETRA TECH, INC., a foreign corporation, 9 Defendant. 10

11 Before the Court, without oral argument, is Plaintiff Kittitas Reclamation 12 District’s Motion to Remand for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, ECF No. 2. 13 Plaintiff asserts this case must be remanded because the contract giving rise to the 14 dispute includes a forum selection clause establishing that Kittitas County, 15 Washington Superior Court is the appropriate venue. Id. Defendant Tetra Tech, Inc. 16 opposes the motion, arguing that (1) a separate contract governs and does not 17 establish a forum for litigation, and (2) the forum selection clause does not deprive 18 this court of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 5. Having reviewed the stipulated 19 pleading and the file in this matter, the Court is fully informed and denies the 20 motion. 1 Plaintiff filed this action in Kittitas County Superior Court asserting claims 2 against Defendant for breach of contract and negligence. ECF No. 1-1. In the

3 Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the parties entered into a Professional Services 4 Consulting Agreement (“2016 Agreement”), contracting for Defendant to design, 5 manage, administer, and coordinate a project to line portions of an existing dirt

6 canal. Id. at 4–5. Defendant removed the action to this Court. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff 7 asserts this action must be remanded to the state court because the 2016 Agreement 8 contains a forum selection clause identifying the appropriate forum as the Superior 9 Court of the State of Washington situated in the county in which Plaintiff is located.

10 ECF No. 2 at 4. Defendant asserts a separate contract executed in 2017 (“2017 11 Agreement”) governs this dispute and does not contain a forum selection clause and 12 that the forum selection does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction. ECF No. 5 at 2.

13 Plaintiff asserts the 2017 Agreement does not replace or supersede the 2016 14 Agreement and that the 2017 Agreement incorporates the same forum selection 15 clause as the 2016 Agreement. ECF No. 14 at 1–2. 16 A forum selection clause does not deprive a federal court of subject matter

17 jurisdiction. Kamm v. ITEX Corp., 568 F.3d 752, 754 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing M/S 18 Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 12 (1972)). When a valid forum 19 selection clause mandates venue in a non-federal forum, a motion to dismiss for

20 1 forum non conveniens is the appropriate method to enforce the clause. Atlantic

2 || Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court, 371 U.S. 49, 60 (2013). 3 Plaintiff's motion to remand relies solely on the grounds that the 2016 4 ||Agreement’s forum selection clause deprives this court of jurisdiction over the

5 || action. ECF No. 2. However, the Ninth Circuit has expressly rejected this argument. 6 || M/S Bremen, 407 U.S. at 12. As such, regardless of whether the 2016 Agreement 7 ||or 2017 Agreement contains a forum selection clause, this Court is not deprived of 8 || subject matter jurisdiction and the motion to remand on that basis is denied. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 10 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, 11 ECF No. 2, is DENIED. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and 13 || provide copies to all counsel. 14 DATED this 7th day of April 2020. 15 Ke ai erate, SALVADOR MENE #207, JR. 16 United States District sedge 17 18 19 20

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER TTIRINNICTION — 3