Dipnarain et al v. Davenport Aviation, Inc. et al
Filing
24
ORDER granting 16 Davenport Aviation and Joao Simoes' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Venue; denying 23 Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 9/29/2017. (sjt)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
SKYLINE AVIATION CONSULTING,
LLC, et al.,
15
ORDER GRANTING MOTION [Doc.
16] TO DISMISS
Plaintiffs,
13
14
Case No.: 3:17-cv-00662-L-KSC
v.
AIR PEACE, LIMITED, et al.
Defendants.
16
17
Pending before the Court is Defendants Davenport Aviation and Joao Simoes’
18
19
(“Defendants”) motion to dismiss for lack of venue. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule
20
7.1(d)(1), the Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral
21
argument. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion.
22
//
23
//
24
//
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
//
1
3:17-cv-00662-L-KSC
1
This dispute arises out of an alleged breach of contract by Defendants. Plaintiffs
2
Skyline Aviation Consulting, LLC, and Skyline’s owner Premchand Dipnarain
3
(“Plaintiffs”) are in the business of providing technical consulting services to air carriers.
4
Defendant Davenport Aviation (“Davenport”) is in the business of managing information
5
processing and control systems for the aviation industry. Plaintiffs and Davenport
6
entered into a contract pursuant to which Davenport would provide certain technical
7
services to Plaintiffs in exchange for money. Of relevance to the present motion, the
8
contract contained a choice of law and forum selection clause that states:
9
This Agreement will be governed and interpreted by the internal laws of the
State of Ohio without reference to the conflict of laws rules. Further, the
parties consent to the jurisdiction and venue of the State and Federal Courts
located in Franklin County Ohio.
(Contract [Doc. 1-3] § G.) Notwithstanding, Plaintiffs filed the present action, alleging
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
breach of contract and claims derivative of the alleged breach of contract, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California. Defendants now move to
dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) for lack of venue.
Forum selection clauses are presumed valid. M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.,
407 U.S. 1, 10 (1972). A court can set aside a forum selection clause only if the
challenging party shows enforcement would be unreasonable. Id. A forum selection
clause is unreasonable if
(1) its incorporation into the contract was the result of fraud, undue
influence, or overweening bargaining power, (2) the selected forum is so
gravely difficult and inconvenient that the complaining party will for all
practical purposes be deprived of its day in court, or (3) enforcement of the
clause would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which the
suit is brought.
Argueta v. Banco Mexicano, S.A., 87 F.3d 320, 325 (9th Cir. 1996).
Plaintiffs have not submitted any evidence in support of their opposition to the
26
forum selection clause. Rather, they simply assert that the forum selection clause is
27
unreasonable because (1) its inclusion is the product of overweening bargaining power
28
and (2) it would be more convenient to litigate this case in San Diego because all
2
3:17-cv-00662-L-KSC
1
witnesses live around the San Diego area. Plaintiffs’ first argument consists only of a
2
statement that Defendants lawyer drafted the contract. From the fact that Defendants’
3
attorney drafted the forum selection clause, it simply does not follow that Defendants
4
used overweening bargaining power to force Plaintiffs to agree to the forum selection
5
clause.
6
Plaintiffs’ second argument is unpersuasive because it misconstrues the law. It is
7
not enough that litigation in the Southern District would be more convenient than
8
litigation in the agreed upon forum. Rather, geographic concerns will only render a
9
forum selection clause invalid if enforcement would, as a practical matter, create such
10
grave difficulty as to deny Plaintiffs their day in Court. Argueta, 87 F.3d at 325.
11
Plaintiffs make no argument that enforcement of the Forum Selection Clause would have
12
the practical effect of completely denying them their day in Court.
13
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P.
14
12(b)(3) motion to dismiss. Though the Court finds Plaintiffs’ legal arguments to be
15
lacking in merit, they are not so baseless or frivolous to warrant sanctions under Fed. R.
16
Civ. P. 11(b). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion [Doc. 23] for Rule
17
11 sanctions.
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
Dated: September 29, 2017
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
3:17-cv-00662-L-KSC
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?