Spectre Power Boats LLC v. Arrow Powerboats LLC et al
Filing
10
ORDER granting 4 Motion to Remand to State Court, this case is Remanded to the Pima County Superior Court in Tucson, Arizona. Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Court for the Pima County Superior Court.. Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 6/26/2013.(JKM)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Spectre Power Boats, L.L.C., a Florida Limited )
)
Liability Company,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
Arrow Powerboats, L.L.C., a New Jersey )
Limited Liability Company; and Anthony Frisina )
)
and Lori Frisina, husband and wife,
)
)
Defendants.
______________________________________ )
CV 13-308 TUC DCB
ORDER
15
Plaintiff, Spectre Power Boats (Spectre-Lessor) entered into a lease agreement with
16
Arrow Powerboats (Arrow-Lessee) and Guarantors Anthony and Lori Frisina. Spectre leased
17
Arrow certain boat molds and other equipment for use in manufacturing powerboats in
18
Florida. The lease provided for Arrow to market and sell its boats under the established trade
19
name “Spectre Powerboats.” Subsequently, Arrow learned that the Spectre trademark was
20
not owned by Spectre when another individual began marketing Spectre boats and
21
threatening to sue Arrow over its use of the name Spectre. Arrow stopped paying Spectre
22
under the lease, and Spectre sued Arrow in the Pima County Superior Court for breach of
23
contract. The case culminated in a default judgment against Spectre for damages. Arrow
24
then filed a replevin action in Florida to enforce the default judgment. Arrow next filed a
25
second action in the Arizona court, which alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment,
26
violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.
27
Defendants removed the action to federal court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and 28
28
U.S.C. § 1441(b), because the dispute is between parties of diverse citizenship involving a
1
controversy in excess of $75,000 exclusive of interests and costs. Spectre is a company
2
organized under the laws of Florida, doing business in Florida. Its sole member is a “citizen”
3
of Arizona. (Notice of Removal (Doc. 1) ¶ 5.) Arrow is a company organized under the
4
laws of New Jersey; its principals, the Frisinas, are residents of New Jersey. Id. at 6-7.
5
Arrow’s “Spectre” power boat operation is in Florida.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
The Plaintiff sued the Defendants in Arizona state court, pursuant to a forum
selection clause:
33. Governing Law, Jurisdiction and Venue. This Agreement is being
entered into in accordance with and shall be governed and interpreted by the
laws of the State of Arizona. The parties acknowledge, understand and
agree to jurisdiction of the State of Arizona in any dispute or enforcement
proceeding involving this Agreement or the transaction described herein,
and the parties and Guarantors consent to personal jurisdiction in
connection therewith, and agree that any such dispute and/or enforcement
action shall be heard in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in Pima
County, Arizona. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, Lessor at its
election, may elect to bring an enforcement action involving any such
dispute in the State of New Jersey or the state where the Equipment and/or
Intellectual Property are located, and in such case, the parties and the
Guarantors hereby agree to jurisdiction of any such state and consent to
personal jurisdiction in connection with any such proceeding, and agree
that any such enforcement action shall be heard in the court of general
jurisdiction of any such state.
16
Defendants removed the action based on diversity. Defendants assert the latter part
17
of paragraph 33 makes this a permissive forum selection/choice of law clause. (Response
18
to Motion to Remand (Doc. 7) at 5.) Defendants assert “permissive forum selection clauses
19
establish venue or jurisdiction in a specified court but still permit venue elsewhere, and
20
mandatory forum selection clauses require actions to be brought only in the specified court.”
21
Id. (citing Northern Cal. Dist. Council of Laborers v. Pittsburg-Des Moines Steel Co., 69
22
F.3d 1034, 1036-37 (9th Cir. 1995); Docksider, Ltd. v. Sea Tech., Ltd., 875 F.2d 762, 764
23
(9th Cir. 1989); Hunt Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Supreme Oil Co., 817 F.2d 75, 78 (9th Cir.
24
1995)). “For a clause to be mandatory, the clause must contain language that clearly
25
designates a forum as the exclusive one.” And, “[g]enerally, when a clause only specifies
26
jurisdiction in a particular court, the clause will not be enforced to bar venue elsewhere
27
28
2
1
without some further language indicating the parties’ intent to make jurisdiction exclusive.”
2
(Response at 9-10 (further citations omitted).
3
“A court may determine a party’s intent not just from the plain language of the
4
contract, but also from the subsequent acts and conduct of the parties to the contract.” Id. at
5
10 (citing Scribner v. Worldcom, Inc., 249 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 2001) (emphasis in original).
6
Defendants argue that the Plaintiff’s have treated the clause as permissive: first, filing a
7
breach of contract claim for delinquency in the Arizona state court, then filing the action for
8
replevin in Florida, and finally returning the Arizona state court to file this action, which is
9
the subject of Defendant’s removal.
10
The Court finds that the forum selection clause here is mandatory because it does
11
more than just specify that the parties agree there shall be jurisdiction in Arizona, it specifies
12
that any dispute and/or enforcement action shall be heard in the Superior Court of the State
13
of Arizona, in Pima County, Arizona. As stated the parties agreed that litigation shall be in
14
this court only, except the Lessor (Spectre Power Boats) may elect to bring an enforcement
15
action in New Jersey or the state where the equipment and/or intellectual property are
16
located. The permissive nature of the forum selection clause does not serve the Defendant’s
17
removal. Only the Lessor, Spectre, may proceed outside of Arizona and only to bring an
18
enforcement action. Plaintiff Spectre exercised this discretion with regard to the replevin
19
action, which by its nature could not be brought in Arizona. Neither the Plaintiff’s conduct
20
nor the language of the forum selection clause suggests it is permissive. In fact, the latter
21
portion suggests the contrary. If permissive, there would be no reasons for the parties to
22
include the limited exception to venue being exclusively in the Superior Court for the State
23
of Arizona, Pima County.
24
Accordingly,
25
IT IS ORDERED that Motion to Remand (doc. 4) is GRANTED and the matter is
26
REMANDED to the Pima County Superior Court in Tucson, Arizona.
27
28
3
1
2
3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this
Order to the Clerk of the Court for the Pima County Superior Court.
DATED this 26th day of June, 2013.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?