Monastiero v. Appmobi, Inc.
Filing
34
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND RESCHEDULING HEARING 32 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/14/2014)
1
2
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
No. C 13-05711 SI
JOSEPH MONASTIERO,
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND RESCHEDULING HEARING
Plaintiff,
v.
APPMOBI, INC.,
Defendant.
/
11
12
Having considered defendant’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration pursuant
13
to this Court’s Local Rule 7-9(a), the Court GRANTS the motion. The Court deems defendant’s motion
14
for leave to be the motion for reconsideration.
15
The Court requests further briefing on the question of whether, under Atlantic Marine Const. Co.
16
Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 134 S.Ct. 568 (2013), a district court may or must consider the factors
17
enunciated in M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972), 12-13, 15, 18 (enforcement of
18
a forum selection clause would be unreasonable where: (1) the inclusion of the clause in the agreement
19
“was invalid for such reasons as fraud or overreaching”; (2) the party wishing to repudiate the clause
20
shows “that trial in the contractual forum will be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that he will for
21
all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court”; and (3) “enforcement would contravene a strong
22
public policy of the forum in which suit is brought.”) in a separate analysis determining the
23
enforceability of the forum selection clause. The parties should also evaluate the continuing vitality of
24
the Ninth Circuit’s direction in Murphy v. Schneider National Inc., 362 F.3d 1133, 1141-42 (9th Cir.
25
2003), that as to the second Bremen exception, “courts are to consider a party’s financial ability to
26
litigate in the forum selected by the contract when determining the reasonableness of enforcing a forum
27
selection clause.”
28
1
The parties shall submit additional briefing by April 23, 2014. If plaintiff wishes to file a
2
separate opposition to defendant’s motion for reconsideration, it shall do so by April 23, 2014.
3
Defendant’s motion for certificate of appealability, currently scheduled for hearing on April 18,
4
2014, is continued to May 9, 2014. Docket No. 23.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
Dated: April 14, 2014
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
SUSAN ILLSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?