E-Ventures Worldwide, LLC v. Google, Inc.

Filing 73

ORDER granting plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint within 14 days of this Order; denying as moot 57 defendant's Motion to Transfer; denying as moot 58 defendant's Motion to Dismiss. See Order for details. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 10/19/2015. (AMB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
E-VENTURES WORLDWIDE, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:14-cv-646-FtM-29CM

GOOGLE, INC.,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on review of defendant’s
Motion to Transfer (Doc. #57) filed on June 5, 2015.

Plaintiff

filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. #62) on July 6, 2015 and
defendant filed a Reply (Doc. #68) on July 27, 2015.

Also before

the Court is defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #58) filed on
June 5, 2015.

Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. #63)

on July 6, 2015 and defendant filed a Reply (Doc. #67) on July 27,
2015.
I.
On June 5, 2015, plaintiff, e-ventures Worldwide, LLC (“eventures”) filed a four-count Amended Complaint (Doc. #53) against
Google, Inc. (“Google”) in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida.

The Amended Complaint alleges

that Google improperly removed 366 of plaintiff’s websites from
its search results. (Id. ¶¶ 20-30.)

One website that was removed

is governed by an agreement (“AdWords Agreement”) entered into by
the parties that contains a forum selection clause. (Doc. #57-1;
Doc. #62, pp. 5-6.)

Defendant now moves to transfer venue to

California pursuant to the forum selection clause in the AdWords
Agreement.

(Doc.

#57.)

In

plaintiff’s

response,

plaintiff

requests the Court deny defendant’s Motion to Transfer or, in the
alternative, grant plaintiff leave to amend its Amended Complaint
to remove allegations relating to the one website that is governed
by the forum selection clause.

(Doc. #62.)
II.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “a district court may transfer any
civil action to any other district or division where it might have
been brought” when it is convenient for the parties and witnesses,
or “in the interest of justice.”

When the parties to litigation

have agreed to a valid forum-selection clause, “a district court
should ordinarily transfer the case to the forum specified in that
clause.” Atl. Marine Contr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 134 S. Ct.
568, 581 (2013). Forum selection clauses are presumptively valid.
Krenkel v. Kerzner Intern. Hotels Ltd., 579 F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th
Cir. 2009).
The Court “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice
so requires.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

Leave is within the

discretion of the Court but may be denied for the stated reasons
of “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the

2

movant,

repeated

failure

to

cure

deficiencies

by

amendments

previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue
of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment.”

Foman

v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
The forum selection clause that defendant is attempting to
enforce to transfer the entire case is present in an agreement
that relates to only one of the 366 websites being litigated.

The

Court will grant leave to the plaintiff to amend its First Amended
Complaint to remove allegations regarding the one website.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff is granted leave to amend its First Amended

Complaint to remove the allegations involving the one website.
Plaintiff shall file its Second Amended Complaint within FOURTEEN
(14) DAYS of this Opinion and Order.
2.

Defendant’s Motion to Transfer (Doc. #57) is DENIED as

moot.
3.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #58) is DENIED as

moot.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this __19th__ day of
October, 2015.

3

Copies: Counsel of record

4