Lentini v. Kelly Services, Inc. et al

Filing 3

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO TRANSFER TO EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT by Judge William Alsup [granting 14 Motion to Transfer Case; finding as moot 19 Motion Transfer to Eastern District of Michigan]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2017) [Transferred from cand on 10/5/2017.]

2:17-cv-13261-SFC-SDD Doc # 3 Filed 10/05/17 Pg 1 of 10

Pg ID 88

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

MICHAEL LENTINI,
Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

No. C17-03911 WHA

v.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO TRANSFER TO
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION
FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

KELLY SERVICES, INC.;
and CUTCO STORES, INC.,
Defendants.
/

INTRODUCTION
In this wrongful termination and wage-and-hour-action, defendants move to transfer
venue. Plaintiff opposes. For the reasons herein, defendants’ motion is GRANTED.
STATEMENT
In October 2014, plaintiff Michael Lentini signed an agreement as part of his

21

employment application with defendant Kelly Services, Inc., a staffing agency, which provided

22

that “any action arising out of [the] Application, Agreement, or relationship between [Lentini]

23

and Kelly established herein shall be brought only in the State of Michigan Courts of appropriate

24

venue, or the United States District Court sitting in Michigan, and [Lentini] consent[s] to and

25

submit[s] [himself] to the jurisdiction of such courts” (Dkt. No. 14–1 ¶ 3, Exh. A). He was hired

26

and began to work for Kelly in November 2014. Through Kelly, Lentini was assigned various

27

jobs as a “demonstrator” which involved him going to stores such as Costco Wholesale and

28

demonstrating the use of different appliances.

2:17-cv-13261-SFC-SDD Doc # 3 Filed 10/05/17 Pg 2 of 10

Pg ID 89

1

One company Kelly staffs for is Cutco Stores, Inc. In March 2016, Kelly referred

2

Lentini to an assignment with Cutco, whereby Kelly remained his employer and Cutco assumed

3

operational control over the assignment (Dkt No. 13 ¶ 10; Dkt. No. 20–1, Exh. D). In June 2016,

4

a representative from Kelly terminated Lentini’s employment over the telephone, allegedly for

5

cursing at a Costco member, leaving a booth unattended, and impermissibly using a computer

6

at a Costco location (Dkt. No. 13 ¶ 27).

7

Lentini initiated the instant action in the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County

8

in June 2017. Defendants removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District

9

of California. Following removal, Lentini filed his first amended complaint, alleging fourteen
claims under the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act, including wrongful

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

termination, retaliation, and failure to pay overtime wages (Dkt. No. 13).1 Defendants move to

12

transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under

13

the terms of the forum-selection clause contained in the Kelly employment agreement signed by

14

Lentini. Defendants also move for a more definite statement (Dkt. No. 24). This order follows

15

full briefing and oral argument.
ANALYSIS

16

This order undertakes the necessary two-step analysis when a party moves to transfer

17
18

venue pursuant to a forum-selection clause. It first considers whether the forum-selection clause

19

at issue is valid, then turns to the public-interest factors under 28 U.S.C. 1404. Finally, this

20

order addresses whether Cutco, a non-signatory to the agreement, can enforce the forum-

21

selection clause against Lentini.
A forum-selection clause should be enforced unless the party challenging enforcement

22
23

of such a provision can show it is unreasonable. M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.,

24

407 U.S. 1, 10 (1972). Both the Supreme Court and our court of appeals have construed

25

this exception narrowly. A forum-selection clause may be found unreasonable under three

26

circumstances: “(1) if the inclusion of the clause in the agreement is the product of fraud or

27
1

28

Lentini previously filed a class action lawsuit against Kelly in the United States District Court, for
the Central District of California, from which he subsequently voluntarily withdrew from (Case No. 2:16-cv3898). He alleges his participation in that suit as the basis for his retaliation claim.

2

2:17-cv-13261-SFC-SDD Doc # 3 Filed 10/05/17 Pg 3 of 10

Pg ID 90

1

overreaching; (2) if the party wishing to repudiate the clause would be effectively deprived of

2

his day in court were the clause enforced; and (3) if enforcement would contravene a strong

3

public policy of the forum in which the suit is brought.” Murphy v. Schneider National,

4

Inc., 362 F.3d 1133, 1140 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing M/S Bremen, 407 U.S. at 12–18).

5

The forum-selection clause in this action does not fall into any of these three categories,

6

as now explained.

7

1.

8

The provision in Lentini’s employment agreement which mandates that all disputes be

9

adjudicated in Michigan was not the product of fraud or overreaching. It was presented on the

THE AGREEMENT WAS NOT THE PRODUCT OF FRAUD.

page of the agreement which he signed, under the heading, “Choice of Law and Jurisdiction

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

and Forum,” printed in reasonably large font (Dkt. No. 14–1, Exh. A). The forum-selection

12

clause was neither hidden, nor was Lentini tricked into accepting it. Lentini claims that the

13

forum-selection clause is unenforceable because it was not reasonably communicated to him.

14

Specifically, he alleges that “defendants did not explain the significance of the forum-selection

15

clause or make any attempt to draw Lentini’s attention to it,” and it was presented “in a take it or

16

leave it package of documents that required only a mouse click for consent” (Dkt No. 20 at 6).

17

In Moretti, a forum-selection clause found to be reasonably communicated was contained

18

in a “Terms of Use” hyperlink, to which customers consented to by checking the “Acceptance

19

Box.” Moretti held that it was sufficient to “require a user to affirmatively accept the terms,

20

even if the terms are not presented on the same page as the acceptance button as long as the user

21

has access to the terms of service.” Moretti v. Hertz Corp., 2014 WL 1410432, at *2 (N.D. Cal.

22

April 11, 2014) (Judge Jeffrey White). Here, Lentini had access to the electronic agreement

23

containing the forum-selection clause as part of the package of application documents to which

24

he consented by the click of a mouse after signing. The clause was thus reasonably

25

communicated to Lentini.

26

Lentini argues that because defendants are multi-national corporations and he is an

27

individual lacking in business acumen, the inclusion of the forum-selection clause was the

28

product of overreaching (Dkt. No. 20 at 6). “A differential in power or education on a
3

2:17-cv-13261-SFC-SDD Doc # 3 Filed 10/05/17 Pg 4 of 10

Pg ID 91

1

non-negotiated contract will not vitiate a forum selection clause.” Murphy, 362 F.3d at

2

1141 (citing Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 595 (1991)). “To decline

3

enforcement of a forum-selection clause merely on the showing of non-negotiability and

4

power difference . . . would disrupt the settled expectations of the parties [] and would threaten

5

the ability of employers to require that disputes with their employees normally be settled in

6

their neighborhood, absent some other exigency.” Ibid.

7

Neither Murphy nor Spradlin — decisions Lentini relies on — supports his position.

or overreaching, despite power disparities between the parties. The plaintiff in Murphy,

10

for example, was a truck driver educated up to the tenth grade who was also presented a

11
For the Northern District of California

In neither decision did the courts find the forum-selection clause was a product of fraud

9

United States District Court

8

non-negotiable contract by a large company. See Murphy, 362 F.3d 1133. Our court of appeals

12

nevertheless held that his assertions were predicated upon a claim of power differential and

13

non-negotiability and were insufficient to overcome the strong presumption in favor of enforcing

14

forum-selection clauses. Id. at 1141. In Spradlin, our court of appeals found there was no

15

overreaching by a multinational military support company, despite the fact that its employment

16

contract contained a Saudi Arabian forum-selection clause and it was “highly foreseeable that

17

terminated American employees [would] be required to return to the United States and thus face

18

considerable obstacles in bringing wrongful termination actions.” Spradlin v. Lear Siegler

19

Mgmt. Servs. Co., 926 F.2d 865, 869 (9th Cir. 1991).

20

Like the above cases, Lentini has failed to show fraud or overreaching despite there

21

being a power differential between Lentini and Kelly. If Lentini was savvy enough to do the

22

demonstrator job in dealing with the public, he was savvy enough to understand what he was

23

signing, provided he cared enough to even glance over it. Here, the provision was not the

24

product of fraud or overreaching.
NOT DEPRIVED OF DAY IN COURT.

25

2.

26

Lentini has also failed to show that he would be deprived his day in court in Michigan.

27

In Murphy, our court of appeals held that “the combination of [plaintiff]’s alleged

28

financial troubles and physical limitations would bar him from litigating his claim in
4

2:17-cv-13261-SFC-SDD Doc # 3 Filed 10/05/17 Pg 5 of 10

Pg ID 92

1

Wisconsin.” Id. at 1143. “Murphy and the weight of persuasive authority from this district and

2

other jurisdictions suggest that neither severe physical limitation nor economic hardship alone is

3

generally enough.” Pratt v. Silversea Cruises, Ltd., 2005 WL 1656891, *3 (N.D. Cal. 2005)

4

(Judge Susan Illston).

5

Here, Lentini alleges that he “lacks the financial ability to bear the costs and

considerable financial difficulties (Dkt. No. 20 at 8; Dkt. No. 20–1 ¶¶ 27–35). He also declares,

8

however, that he started a new, full-time job in June 2017, and in his first amended complaint

9

does not allege any physical limitations that would prevent travel (Dkt. No. 20–1 ¶ 28; Dkt. No.

10

13 ¶¶ 10, 18, 19, 24, 25). Plainly, Lentini does not suffer from the “combination of . . . financial

11
For the Northern District of California

inconvenience of litigating in Michigan” and in his declaration provides details about his

7

United States District Court

6

troubles and physical limitations” that can conspire to deprive a litigant of his day in court.

12

Murphy, 362 F.3d at 1143.

13

Lentini claims that he will be unable to compel by subpoena or otherwise be unable to

14

afford to bring to trial his “key witnesses,” who allegedly reside in either “Northern California”

15

or the “Western Region of the United States” (Dkt. No. 20 at 8). Lentini has named only one

16

witness, however — an area manager for Cutco — and has failed to specifically allege where

17

any of his potential witnesses are currently located (Dkt No. 20–2 at 2). Specific allegations

18

are necessary to show that enforcement of a forum-selection clause would cause the sort of

19

inconvenience which would deprive a party of their day in court. Compare Spradlin,

20

926 F.2d at 869 (“[plaintiff] has failed even to offer any specific allegations as to travel costs,

21

availability of counsel[], location of witnesses, or his financial ability to bear such costs and

22

inconvenience”), with Petersen v. Boeing, 715 F.3d 276, 281–82 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[plaintiff]

23

plausibly alleged that the majority of his witnesses would be American. He named at least 16

24

such witnesses, including other [] employees who experienced similar conditions . . .”).

25

Moreover, Lentini lives in Los Angeles County, hundreds of miles from San Francisco.

26

Considering the likely cost of travel, meals, and lodging for him to appear in San Francisco,

27

Lentini’s argument that transfer to Michigan would prevent him from litigating his case is

28

unconvincing. The incremental burden would only be slight.
5

2:17-cv-13261-SFC-SDD Doc # 3 Filed 10/05/17 Pg 6 of 10

1

3.

Pg ID 93

THE FORUM-SELECTION CLAUSE
DOES NOT CONTRAVENE PUBLIC POLICY.

2
Finally, transfer would not contravene any strong public policy of California. Absent a
3
total foreclosure of remedy in the transferee forum, a forum-selection clause is only
4
unreasonable when it contravenes a policy specifically related to venue. See, e.g., Jones v. GNC
5
Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 497–498 (9th Cir. 2000).
6
Lentini argues that “the public policy in favor of full and prompt payment of an
7
employee’s earned wages is fundamental and well established” (Dkt. No. 20 at 9). This policy,
8
however, is not specifically tethered to venue, and Lentini has made no showing that his rights
9
will suffer from litigating his case in Michigan. Although Lentini would prefer to adjudicate
10
considered under this factor. See Monastiero v. appMobi, Inc., No. C 13-05711 SI. 2014 WL
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

his rights in a California forum, his preference is a private-interest factor which may not be
11
12
1991564, at *6 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2014). Therefore, Lentini’s wage claims under the California
13
Labor Code have no effect on the validity of the forum-selection clause.
14
Lentini similarly asserts that transfer should be denied because his “representative action
15
under the Private Attorney’s General Act . . . is not waivable” and it is “clearly not available
16
under the laws of the State of Michigan” (Dkt. No. 20 at 9–11). Because the instant motion
17
seeks a forum-selection rather than a choice-of-law determination, Lentini’s burden is to show a
18
fundamental public policy underlying California’s Private Attorney’s General Act that relates to
19
venue. See, e.g., East Bay Women’s Health, Inc. v. gloStream, Inc., No. C 14-00712 WHA, 2014
20
WL 1618382, at *3 (N.D. Cal. April 21, 2014). He has failed to show his PAGA claim will be
21
affected in any way by the venue it is litigated in. Therefore, transfer would not contravene any
22
strong public policy of California.
23
Lentini further argues that “when a forum-selection clause is coupled with a choice-of24
law clause, the Court may not consider the practical consequences of enforcing a forum selection
25
clause that operates in tandem with a choice of law provision” (Dkt. No. 20 at 10). Lentini
26
wrongly assumes, however, that the validity of a choice-of-law clause is at issue in the present
27
motion. A forum-selection clause is “separate and distinct from choice of law provisions that are
28
not before the court.” Besag v. Custom Decorators, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13582, at *10
6

2:17-cv-13261-SFC-SDD Doc # 3 Filed 10/05/17 Pg 7 of 10

Pg ID 94

1

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2009) (Judge Jeffrey White). Moreover, Lentini’s argument that Michigan’s

2

labor laws might prove less protective than California’s is speculative and is beside the point

3

since this motion deals with forum, not choice of law. It may yet be the case that a Michigan

4

court will decide to apply the substantive law of California.

5
6

For the foregoing reasons, the forum-selection clause is not unreasonable and is therefore
valid.

7

4.

8

Where there is a valid forum-selection clause, courts may nevertheless weigh

9

PUBLIC INTEREST FACTORS DO NOT PRECLUDE TRANSFER.

public-interest factors in deciding whether to transfer. Atlantic Marine, 134 S.Ct. at 582.
“Because [public-interest] factors will rarely defeat a transfer motion, the practical result is that

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

forum-selection clauses should control except in unusual cases.” Ibid. Public interest factors

12

include: “(1) the local interest in the lawsuit; (2) the court’s familiarity with the governing law;

13

(3) the burden on local courts and juries; (4) congestion in the court; and (5) the costs of

14

resolving a dispute unrelated to a particular forum.” Boston Telecomm’cns Group v. Wood,

15

588 F.3d 1201, 1211 (9th Cir. 2009).

16

There is nothing exceptional here which would warrant disrupting the legitimate

17

expectations of the parties. Lentini concedes that the third and fourth factors are neutral.

18

Only the first factor, California’s interest in protecting the rights of its citizens, weighs against

19

transfer. The second factor is neutral because a federal court in Michigan is capable of applying

20

both federal and California law to Lentini’s claims. Finally, as to the fifth factor, this dispute

21

is not unrelated to Michigan. Kelly is headquartered in Troy, Michigan (Dkt. No. 14–1 at 2).

22

This factor is neutral. Only the first factor weighs in Lentini’s favor. This is not enough to deny

23

transfer in light of the private-interest factors presumed in favor of defendants and the force of

24

the forum-selection clause. Atlantic Marine, 134 S.Ct. at 582-83. It is in the interest of justice

25

that the parties be held to their bargain.

26
27
28
7

2:17-cv-13261-SFC-SDD Doc # 3 Filed 10/05/17 Pg 8 of 10

Pg ID 95

1

5.

DEFENDANT CUTCO MAY ENFORCE THE FORUM-SELECTION CLAUSE.

2

Lentini contends that if the forum-selection clause is valid, “it does not govern where

3

Lentini may bring suit against Cutco, because Defendant Cutco is not a party to that Agreement”

4

(Dkt. No. 20 at 13). This argument fails because non-parties to an agreement containing a

5

forum-selection clause can benefit from such a clause in litigation concerning conduct related

6

to the agreement. See Holland America v. Wartsila North America, Inc., 485 F.3d 450 (9th Cir.

7

2007); Manetti-Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci America, Inc., 858 F.2d 509 (9th Cir. 1988).

8
9

Plaintiff cites Manetti-Farrow in support of his argument against enforcement.
There, our court of appeals held that enforcement was valid as to non-signatory defendants
because the non-signatories “were involved in some way in ratifying or executing the contract

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

between the signatories.” This is not the only condition under which a third party may claim

12

the benefit of a forum-selection clause, however. In Holland America, the plaintiff had entered

13

into a contract with the defendant which conducted surveys of plaintiff’s cruise ships. After an

14

accident destroyed one of its ships, the plaintiff brought suit against that defendant and two

15

other survey-conducting entities which were separate corporations and not parties to the

16

original contract, but had performed surveys in the United States and Canada. Our court of

17

appeals upheld enforcement of the forum-selection clause in the original contract against

18

both non-signatory defendants “because any transactions between [non-signatory defendants]

19

and [plaintiff] took place as part of the larger contractual relationship between [plaintiff] and

20

[signatory defendant],” also noting that “the record reflects that one of the few things upon

21

which the parties agree is that [plaintiff]’s relationship with [non-signatory defendants] arose out

22

of and was intimately related to its relationship with [signatory defendant].” Holland America,

23

485 F. 3d at 456; Id. at n.2.

24

So too here.

25

Lentini’s employment relationship with Cutco clearly took place as part of the larger

26

contractual relationship between Lentini and Kelly. This is reflected in the very agreement

27

containing the forum-selection clause which states: “I understand I may be offered employment

28

with Kelly Services, Inc., subject to my availability for work, Kelly’s ability to find suitable
8

2:17-cv-13261-SFC-SDD Doc # 3 Filed 10/05/17 Pg 9 of 10

Pg ID 96

1

assignments for me, and results of reference checking or other employment-related screening

2

procedures” (Dkt. No. 14–1, Exh. A) (emphasis added). Moreover, contained in a document

3

on Kelly Services letterhead titled, “Sales Demonstrator Acknowledgment Form for CUTCO

4

STORES Assignments,” is the following:

5
6
7
8
9

EMPLOYEE shall be employed as a DEMONSTRATOR by Kelly
Services. As the employer of record, Kelly is responsible for all
tax withholding from your gross wages and CUTCO STORES will
retain operational control over your assignments. EMPLOYEE’S
duties shall include demonstrating and actively promoting CUTCO
STORES products for sale as assigned [] in the various store
locations of the third party companies listed on Attachment A [],
using promotional images or materials provided by CUTCO
STORES.
(Dkt. No. 20–1, Exh. D) (emphasis added). Understandably, Lentini himself understood

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

this document to govern his employment relationship with both Cutco and Kelly (Dkt. No. 20–1

12

at 4). Lentini now brings claims against Kelly and Cutco, alleging conduct which is directly

13

related to his contractual relationship with both parties. Because Cutco is willing to submit to

14

the forum-selection clause, it is not unreasonable or unjust to enforce the clause even though it

15

did not sign the agreement. See Holland America, 485 F. 3d 450. Cutco may therefore benefit

16

from the forum-selection clause contained in Lentini’s agreement with Kelly.

17

Finally, Lentini argues that the agreement containing the forum-selection clause at issue

18

was either terminated or superseded.2 This argument is unpersuasive. The language in the

19

agreement he relies on merely states that “once 14 days have passed since [his] last day worked,

20

[his] employment with Kelly will be terminated” — it says nothing about the agreement itself

21

being terminated (Dk. No. 14–1, Exh. A). Moreover, the time periods in which Lentini claims

22

to have been unemployed contradict what is provided in his first amended complaint.

23
24

The forum-selection clause remains valid and enforceable. Therefore, this order transfers
the action to the forum preselected by the parties.

25
26
27
28

2
In his opposition, Lentini claims that on “February 6, [2016],” he signed a new agreement with Kelly
that supersedes his 2014 agreement (Dkt. No. 20 at 20). The agreement Lentini points to, however, is a travel
expense policy form. It does not purport to override his employment agreement with Kelly.

9

2:17-cv-13261-SFC-SDD Doc # 3 Filed 10/05/17 Pg 10 of 10

1
2

Pg ID 97

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to transfer is GRANTED. Defendants’ motion for a

3

more definite statement is DENIED AS MOOT. The clerk shall transfer this action to the United

4

States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: October 2, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10