Filing 47

ORDER denying 40 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by JUDGE RICHARD SMOAK on 10/18/2011. (jcw)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION HANCOCK BANK, successor by merger to Hancock Bank of Florida, Plaintiffs, vs. CASE NO. 4:11-cv-282/RS-WCS MONTE CRISTO OF TALLAHASSEE, INC, MONTE CRISTO OF TALLAHASSEE No. 1, LLC, MONTE CRISTO OF TALLAHASSEE No. 2, LLC, MONTE CRISTO OF TALLAHASSEE No. 3, LLC, MONTE CRISTO OF TALLAHASSEE No. 4, LLC, HOSSEIN GHAZVINI, BEHZAD GHAZVINI, MEHRAN P. GHAZVINI, Defendants. _________________________________________/ ORDER Before me are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Venue (Doc. 40) and Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition (Doc. 46). This resolution of this matter turns on the interpretation of certain promissory notes, assumption agreements, and guarantees executed by Defendants and Plaintiff. The initial loan agreement (Doc. 1, Attach.1, p. 4) contains the following language: Venue and Governing Law Borrower waives any “venue privilege” and/or “diversity of citizenship privilege” which Borrower may now or may have in the future, and does hereby specifically agree, notwithstanding the provision of any state or federal law to the contrary, that the venue for the enforcement, construction or interpretation of this note shall be Leon County, Florida, and the undersigned hereby specifically waives the right to sue or be sued in the court of any other county in the State of Florida, any court in any other state or country or in any federal court, or in any state or federal administrative tribunal. The renewal promissory note (Doc. 1, Attach. 3, p. 1) is less restrictive. It provides the following: “CHOICE OF VENUE: If there is a lawsuit, Borrower agrees upon Lender’s request to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of Leon County, State of Florida.” In light of the arguments presented, the interpretation of these provisions is clear. Plaintiff is correct in that the provisions act to waive the borrower’s venue privilege. There are no words indicating reciprocity in waiver, and they do not limit Plaintiff’s choice of forum. The Motion (Doc. 40) is DENIED. ORDERED on October 18, 2011. /S/ Richard Smoak RICHARD SMOAK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?