BARBOSA VASQUEZ et al v. HUNTER BLOOMINGTON PROPERTIES, LLC et al
Filing
25
ORDER granting Defendant Hunter Bloomington Properties, LLC's 12 Motion to Dismiss - The parties entered into an agreement containing a valid forum selection clause requiring this lawsuit to be litigated in a state court in Monroe County. Accordingly, for the above reasons, the Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss without prejudice. See Order for additional information. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 7/19/2021. (SWM)
Case 1:21-cv-01012-JMS-TAB Document 25 Filed 07/19/21 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 119
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
DIEGO FELIPE BARBOSA VASQUEZ,
ANGIEE LILIANA ROCHA PARRA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HUNTER BLOOMINGTON PROPERTIES,
LLC,
TRACEY WALKER,
CLAY BURNETTE,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:21-cv-01012-JMS-TAB
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO DISMISS
I.
Introduction
Plaintiffs Diego Felipe Barbosa Vasquez and Angiee Liliana Rocha Parra filed a
complaint against Defendants Hunter Bloomington Properties, LLC, Tracey Walker, and Clay
Burnette in this Court for discriminatory housing practices in violation of the federal Fair
Housing Act, breach of contract, and negligence. Defendant Hunter Bloomington Properties,
LLC moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint for improper venue. [Filing No. 12.] Defendant
argues that this matter should be dismissed because the parties entered into a lease agreement
with a forum selection clause providing that all claims between the parties shall be brought in the
courts of Monroe County, Indiana. As explained below, the lease agreement contained a valid
and enforceable forum selection clause, and the correct venue for this matter is the state court in
Monroe County. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.
Case 1:21-cv-01012-JMS-TAB Document 25 Filed 07/19/21 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 120
II.
Discussion
Plaintiffs signed a lease agreement with Defendants in July 2020 to lease one of
Defendants' properties in Bloomington, Indiana, which is located in Monroe County. [Filing No.
1-1.] Section 27 of the lease agreement stated, in relevant part: "Claims. All claims, including
without limitation claims for injury and/or death, will be governed by the internal laws of the
State of Indiana with respect to contracts made and events occurring within Indiana and that
exclusive jurisdiction will be in the courts of Monroe County, Indiana." [Filing No. 1-1, at ECF
p. 8.] On April 23, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Defendants for discriminatory
housing practices, breach of contract, and negligence with this federal court in the Southern
District of Indiana. [Filing No. 1.]
Defendant Hunter Bloomington Properties moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint for
improper venue under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3), but argued that the forum selection clause may be
enforced through forum non conveniens. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) allows for
dismissal of a complaint for improper venue. Whether venue is improper is generally governed
by 28 U.S.C. § 1391, which notes that a civil action may be brought in
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents
of the State in which the district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of
the action is situated; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided
in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's
personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)-(3). However, whether the parties entered into a contract containing a
forum selection clause has no bearing on whether this case falls into one of the categories of
cases listed in § 1391, and Defendant does not argue that this case involves one of those three
categories.
2
Case 1:21-cv-01012-JMS-TAB Document 25 Filed 07/19/21 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 121
Rather, Defendant contends that the parties entered into a forum selection clause that
points to a non-federal forum, so the Court should enforce that clause through forum non
conveniens. The Supreme Court explained in Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for
W. Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 60, 134 S. Ct. 568, 580 (2013):
If venue is proper under federal venue rules, it does not matter for the purpose of
Rule 12(b)(3) whether the forum-selection clause points to a federal or a
nonfederal forum. Instead, the appropriate way to enforce a forum-selection
clause pointing to a state or foreign forum is through the doctrine of forum non
conveniens.
The Seventh Circuit applied Atlantic Marine in Mueller v. Apple Leisure Corp., 880 F.3d 890
(7th Cir. 2018). In Meuller, the parties filed a lawsuit in federal court in the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, but their contract contained a forum selection clause requiring the parties to litigate
disputes in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Id. at 893. The Seventh Circuit, applying Atlantic
Marine, reiterated that when a forum selection clause requires suit in a specific nonfederal
forum, the doctrine of forum non conveniens "is the proper vehicle to enforce the clause." Id. at
894.
This Court has applied Atlantic Marine and reached the same conclusion—to enforce a
forum selection clause through the doctrine of forum non conveniens—numerous times as well.
See, e.g., Jailani v. QFS Transportation, LLC, No. 4:20-cv-55-TWP-DML, 2020 WL 2847019,
at *2 (S.D. Ind. June 2, 2020) ("The appropriate basis for enforcing a forum selection clause
pointing to a state forum is through the doctrine of forum non conveniens." (Internal citation,
quotation marks, and ellipses omitted)); Gonzalez v. Landes Foods, LLC, No. 1:18-cv-196-JMSDML, 2018 WL 1312207, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 14, 2018) ("Though neither party addresses the
issue, the appropriate basis for enforcing a forum selection clause pointing to a state forum is
through the doctrine of forum non conveniens." (Internal citation, quotation marks, and ellipses
3
Case 1:21-cv-01012-JMS-TAB Document 25 Filed 07/19/21 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 122
omitted)); County Materials Corp. v. Indiana Precast, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-1456-TWP-MJD, 2017
WL 347474, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 23, 2017) ("Where venue is proper under Section 1391, the
mere existence of a forum selection clause does not render venue improper under Rule 12(b)(3).
However, a forum selection clause may be enforced through a motion to dismiss pursuant to the
doctrine of forum non conveniens. . . . Except in unusual cases, when parties agree to a valid
forum selection clause, courts should transfer to the forum specified in that clause." (Internal
citations omitted)). See also Living Vehicle, Inc. v. Aluminum Trailer Co., No. 3:21-cv-149DRL-MGG, 2021 WL 2721261, at *2-3 (N.D. Ind. July 1, 2021) ("Living Vehicle incorrectly
posits this motion under Rule 12(b)(3). That rule only applies when venue proves 'wrong' or
'improper.' This federal district is proper venue. The question is whether the parties preferred
another venue—a state venue—by contract. The court must analyze this under the non-statutory
iteration of forum non conveniens." (Internal citations omitted)).
The Supreme Court further noted in Atlantic Marine that while a typical case considering
a forum non conveniens motion requires evaluation of both the convenience of the parties and
various public-interest considerations, the calculus changes when the parties' contract contains a
valid forum selection clause. Atlantic Marine, 571 U.S. at 63. In this case, Plaintiffs bear the
burden of establishing that transfer to the forum for which the parties bargained is unwarranted.
Id. In addition, the Court should not consider arguments about the parties' private interests, since
the parties waive the right to challenge the preselected forum as inconvenient or less convenient
when they agree to a forum selection clause. Id. at 64. Thus, this Court may consider arguments
only about public-interest factors only, which will rarely be enough. Id. See also Mueller, 880
F.3d at 894 ("So when a forum-selection clause is in play, the analysis is limited to publicinterest factors. And because those factors are rarely strong enough to override the parties'
4
Case 1:21-cv-01012-JMS-TAB Document 25 Filed 07/19/21 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 123
preselected forum, the practical result is that forum-selection clauses should control except in
unusual cases." (Internal citations and quotation marks omitted)).
Here, the language in the lease agreement clearly states that exclusive jurisdiction will be
in the courts of Monroe County, Indiana. [Filing No. 1-1.] The Southern District of Indiana is
not a court of Monroe County, Indiana. The only court located in Monroe County, Indiana is the
Monroe Circuit Court, a state court. Thus, the forum selection clause at issue does not extend to
the Southern District of Indiana. See, e.g., County Materials Corp., 2017 WL 347474, at *3
(forum selection clause identifying Hancock County, Indiana as the exclusive venue for
resolving disputes did not extend jurisdiction to the Southern District of Indiana); Jailani, 2020
WL 2847019, at *4 (removal to this Court from Dearborn County, Indiana not proper where
forum selection clause stated any dispute should be brought in that county).
Moreover, the forum selection clause at issue is valid and enforceable. Plaintiffs have not
set forth any claim that the forum selection clause was included in the lease executed by
Plaintiffs as a result of fraud or undue influence. The parties agreed to litigate any disputes in
the courts of Monroe County. Plaintiffs do not allege any fraud, undue influence, or that the
lease agreement is unenforceable. And the clause does not contravene public policy. Plaintiffs
have not set forth any public interest to justify overriding the contractual choice of forum.
Rather, Plaintiffs' main argument is that the language is ambiguous and should be construed
against Defendant as the drafter. The Court disagrees. Section 27 of the lease agreement is a
valid and enforceable forum selection clause that unambiguously identifies Monroe County as
having exclusive jurisdiction over any related claims. Thus, a state court in Monroe County
should address this case in its entirety. Therefore, Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.
5
Case 1:21-cv-01012-JMS-TAB Document 25 Filed 07/19/21 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 124
III.
Conclusion
The parties entered into an agreement containing a valid forum selection clause requiring
this lawsuit to be litigated in a state court in Monroe County. Accordingly, for the above
reasons, the Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss without prejudice. [Filing No. 12.]
Date: 7/19/2021
_______________________________
Tim A. Baker
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution:
All ECF-registered counsel of record via email
6
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?