San Rafael Capital Partners, LLC v. Chaudhry et al

Filing 51

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 8 Motion to Remand is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 12 Motion to Transfer Venue is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to Clark County District Court. The Clerk is instructed to close the case. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 11/25/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc: Certified Copy of Order and Docket Sheet sent to State Court - TR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5

San Rafael Capital Partners, LLC,

6
7
8

Plaintiff,
vs.
Asif Chaudhry, et al.,

9
10

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
) Case No.: 2:15-cv-0992-GMN-PAL
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)

11
12

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiff San Rafael

13

Capital Partners, LLC. (ECF No. 8). Defendants Asif Chaudhry and Navin Subramanian

14

filed a response in opposition, (ECF No. 11), and Plaintiff replied, (ECF No. 14). For the

15

reasons stated herein, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion and remand this action to

16

Clark County District Court.

17

Plaintiff filed this action in Clark County District Court on May 1, 2015, raising

18

claims for breach of contract and intentional interference with contractual relations.

19

(Compl., ECF No. 1-1). Defendants removed the case to this Court on May 29, 2015,

20

citing this Court’s diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Pet. for Rem.

21

2:18-21, ECF No. 1).

22
23
24
25

In the instant Motion, Plaintiff argues that this action must be remanded because
the contract at the center of this dispute contains a clause stating:
To the extent that any party hereto is required to interpret
and/or enforce the terms or any provision hereof, said action
shall be required to be maintained in State Court in Clark
Page 1 of 3

County, Nevada, the situs for [Plaintiff’s] organization and
residence, the exclusive venue for any such actions.

1
2
3

(Feb. 18, 2014 Agmt. p. 3, ECF No. 8-1). Thus, Plaintiff argues that the removal was

4

improper, as the contract at issue establishes Clark County District Court as the exclusive

5

forum for disputes involving its terms and requirements.
Indeed, it is well established that “when parties have agreed to a valid forum-

6
7

selection clause, a district court should ordinarily transfer the case to the forum specified

8

in that clause.” Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Texas, 134 S.

9

Ct. 568, 581 (2013); see also Excell, Inc. v. Sterling Boiler & Mech., Inc., 106 F.3d 318,

10

321 (10th Cir. 1997) (affirming a district court’s remand based on a mandatory forum

11

selection clause which provided that “venue shall lie in the County of El Paso,

12

Colorado”).

13

In the instant case, there is no doubt as to whether the forum-selection clause at

14

issue is mandatory in nature, as it specifically identifies the state court in Clark County,

15

Nevada as the “exclusive venue” for disputes arising under the contract. See, e.g., Air Ion

16

Devices, Inc. v. Air Ion, Inc., No. 02-1717-SI, 2002 WL 1482665, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 5,

17

2002) (holding that language which identifies an “exclusive” venue renders a forum-

18

selection clause to be mandatory rather than permissive). Furthermore, because

19

Plaintiff’s claims involve allegations that Defendants breached their duties under the

20

contract, there can be no doubt that the forum-selection clause applies in this case.

21

Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion, and remand this action to Clark

22

County District Court.1

23
24

Defendants argue that the Court should decline to enforce the forum-selection clause because Plaintiff’s
managing partner: (1) was a licensed attorney who possessed superior legal knowledge, and (2) had been
subject to disciplinary proceedings by the State Bar of Texas that Defendants were not made aware of.
However, the contract at issue explicitly states that Plaintiff’s managing partner was not providing legal
1

25

Page 2 of 3

1
2
3
4

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 8), is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue, (ECF

5
6
7
8
9

No. 12), is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to Clark County
District Court. The Clerk is instructed to close the case.
25
DATED this _____ day of November, 2015.

10
11

___________________________________

12

Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

advice to Defendants, (Feb. 18, 2014 Agmt. p. 2, ECF No. 8-1), and therefore his status as an attorney is
not relevant to the enforceability of the forum-selection clause.

Page 3 of 3