American Specialty Lab LLC v. GenTech Scientific Inc

Filing 18

ORDER granting ECF No. 10 Motion to Transfer Venue. This case will be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. The Court declines to address ECF No. 8 Motion to Dismiss. Clerk directed to effectuate the transfer of this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/16/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

AMERICAN SPECIALTY LAB LLC,
Plaintiff,

10

Case No. 2:17-cv-01458-MMD-PAL
ORDER

v.
11
12

GENTECH SCIENTIFIC INC. ,
Defendant.

13
14

I.

SUMMARY

15

This case arises from Plaintiff American Specialty Lab, LLC’s (“ASL”) purchase of

16

equipment from Defendant GenTech Scientific, Inc. (“GenTech”). GenTech has filed two

17

motions: (1) motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (“Motion to Dismiss”) (ECF No.

18

8); and (2) motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), or in the alternative, motion to

19

transfer venue (“Motion to Transfer”) (ECF No. 10). The Court has reviewed ASL’s

20

responses (ECF Nos. 11, 12) and GenTech’s replies (ECF Nos. 13, 14). For the reasons

21

discussed below, the Court grants the Motion to Transfer and declines to address the

22

Motion to Dismiss.1

23

II.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

24

The following facts are taken from the Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) ASL owns a lab

25

that evaluates herbs and other biological issues. GenTech makes a number of claims on

26
27
28

1While

the Court declines to rule on the Motion to Dismiss in light of the transfer of
the case, the Court did consider the arguments presented in ASL’s opposition to the
Motion to Dismiss because ASL incorporated those arguments in its opposition to the
Motion to Transfer.

1

its website about its products and services, including that it is “well known throughout the

2

analytical instrumentation community for its excellent service, repair and support.” (ECF

3

No. 1 at 3-4.) ASL purchased certain equipment from GenTech for $75,000.00, but the

4

equipment “never worked according to the specification and to the satisfaction of the

5

desired and projected results.” (Id. at 5.) ASL asserts claims for breach of contract and

6

breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

7

III.

DISCUSSION

8

GenTech relies on the forum-selection clause in the “Customer Purchase Order”

9

(“the Purchase Order”) to argue that venue is not proper in Nevada and seeks dismissal

10

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3), or in the alternative, to transfer venue pursuant to 28

11

U.S.C. § 1404. (ECF No. 10 at 2-3.) The Court may consider the Purchase Order in

12

deciding the Motion to Transfer under Rule 12(b)(3). See Murphy v. Schneider Nat’l, Inc.,

13

362 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2004) (the court may consider matters outside the pleadings

14

in deciding a motion made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3).) Moreover, ASL agrees

15

that the Purchase Order governs the parties’ dispute. (ECF No. 12 at 4.) The Purchase

16

Order is a single page document that contains the following provision (“Terms and

17

Conditions”) to the right of the signature line and immediately below the date, which

18

states:

19

21

This order for equipment, parts, or services is expressly limited to
acceptance of GenTech’s General Sales Terms and Conditions (available
at http://gentechscientific.com/contents/8-sales-terms-and-conditions). Any
different or additional terms are expressly rejected by GenTech unless
agreed to in writing.

22

(ECF No. 10 at 9.) Paragraph 30 of the Terms and Conditions (“the Clause”) provides, in

23

pertinent part, that the parties agree that any dispute arising under their agreement “shall

24

be finally settled in an action commenced and maintained in any state or federal district

25

court sitting in WYOMING COUNTY, New York . . .” (Id. at 13.) Accordingly, GenTech

26

argues that the Court should enforce the Clause and dismiss this action, or in the

27

alternative, transfer this action to the federal district court sitting in Wyoming County, New

28

York.

20

2

1

The Supreme Court in Atlantic Marine Construction Company, Inc. v United States

2

District Court for the Western District of Texas, 134 S.Ct. 568 (2013), clarified the

3

procedure for enforcing a forum-selection clause. As the Court explained, 28 U.S.C. §

4

1404(a) “provides a mechanism for enforcement of forum-selection clauses that point to

5

a particular federal district court.” Id. at 579. In dicta, the Court noted that a Rule 12(b)(3)

6

motion is not a proper mechanism to enforce a forum-selection clause; Rule 12(b)(3)

7

allows for dismissal based on “improper venue” but whether venue is “improper” is

8

governed by 28 U.S.C.§ 1391. Id. at 577, 580. Here, GenTech does not contend that

9

venue is improper in this Court under § 1391. GenTech instead seeks to change venue

10

solely because of the forum-selection clause in the Purchase Order, not because venue

11

is not proper in this Court. Indeed, the Complaint sufficiently alleges venue in this Court.

12

(ECF No. 1 at ¶ 4 (“Substantial portion of the activities occurred in Las Vegas.”)) Thus,

13

the Court will consider GenTech’s Motion to Transfer under section 1404(a).

14

“[B]ecause the overarching consideration under § 1404(a) is whether a transfer

15

would promote the interest of justice, a valid forum-selection clause should be given

16

controlling weight in all but the most exceptional cases.” Atlantic Marine, 134 S.Ct. at 581

17

(quoting Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 33 (1988)) (internal quotation

18

marks and alteration omitted). The Court instructs “district courts to adjust their usual §

19

1404(a) analysis in three ways”: (1) disregard the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) disregard

20

“arguments about the parties’ private interests”; and (3) “consider arguments about

21

public-interest factors only.” Id. at 581-82. The Supreme Court recognizes that this

22

“analysis presupposes a contractually valid forum-selection clause.” Id. at 579 n. 5. In the

23

Ninth Circuit, a “forum selection clause is presumptively valid; the party seeking to avoid

24

a forum selection clause bears a heavy burden to establish a ground upon which [the

25

court] will conclude the clause is unenforceable.” Doe 1 v. AOL LLC, 552 F.3d 1077, 1083

26

(9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

27

GenTech insists that under Ninth Circuit case law, the Clause is presumptively

28

valid and should be enforced. The Clause is clear as to forum—any dispute under the

3

1

Purchase Order “shall be finally settled in an action commenced and maintained in any

2

state or federal district court sitting in WYOMING COUNTY, New York . . .” (ECF No. 10

3

at 13.)

4

The gist of ASL’s response is that the Terms and Conditions are not part of the

5

Purchase Order, and hence are not enforceable, by characterizing the Terms and

6

Conditions as a “browsewrap agreement.”2 (ECF No. 11 at 2-3 (incorporating arguments

7

presented in ECF No. 12 at 5-19).) However, as GenTech correctly points out, this is a

8

term of art used to refer to contracts formed on the Internet “where a website’s terms and

9

conditions of use are generally posted on the website via a hyperlink at the bottom of the

10

screen.” Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171, 1175-1176 (9th Cir. 2014). With

11

a browsewrap agreement, the user of the website “gives his assent [to the terms and

12

conditions] by simply using the website.” Id. at 1176 (internal quotation marks and citation

13

omitted). “‘The defining feature of browsewrap agreements is that the user can continue

14

to use the website or its services without visiting the page hosting the browsewrap

15

agreement or even knowing that such a webpage exists.’” Id. (quoting Be In, Inc. v.

16

Google Inc., No. 12–CV–03373–LHK, 2013 WL 5568706, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2013)).

17

The Purchase Order does not share any substantial features with a browsewrap

18

agreement.3 First and foremost, ASL does not dispute that the Purchase Order is a valid

19

contract because ASL is premising its breach of contract claim on the Purchase Order.

20

Second, ASL completed the missing information in the Purchase Order by hand writing

21

in the items ordered, adding an additional term that “timeliness is important if not 5%

22

also makes a number of arguments (i.e., a plaintiff’s choice of forum should
be given great deference and the court should consider whether the forum is convenient
to the parties and witnesses) (ECF No. 12 at 4-5) that are not applicable under the Atlantic
Marine framework. The only argument that ASL makes that would fall within Atlantic
Marine’s “public-interest factors” analysis pertains to its claim of fraud. In particular, ASL
contends that the Clause “if not obtained by fraud, clearly had been taken by duress in
the form of a clause hidden in browsewrap.” (ECF No. 11 at 6.) However, because the
argument as to fraud is based on the Clause being a browsewrap, this argument is
misplaced. See discussion, infra.
3Assuming the Purchase Order was obtained online at GenTech’s website, the
only similar feature with a browsewrap agreement ends there—that the form for the
agreement form was found on the Internet.

23
24
25
26
27
28

2ASL

4

1

discount/week,” and signed and dated the Purchase Order. (ECF No. 10 at 9.) Thus the

2

wet signature removes the Purchase Order and the Terms and Conditions from the

3

universe from which browserwrap agreements reside. Third, the Purchase Order clearly

4

states that the “order for equipment, parts, or services is expressly limited to acceptance

5

of GenTech’s General Terms and Conditions.” (ECF No. 10 at 9.) This provision provides

6

notice of the incorporation of the Terms and Conditions, unlike the situation with

7

browsewrap agreements where “the user can continue to use the website . . . without

8

visiting the page hosting the browsewrap agreement or even knowing that such a

9

webpage exists.” Nguyen, 763 F.3d at1176. That the party entering into the Purchase

10

Order needed to access the provided link to obtain the Terms and Conditions does not

11

turn the Purchase Order into a browsewrap agreement. Accordingly, the cases that ASL

12

relies on, and the arguments that ASL offers that are premised on the characterization of

13

the Terms and Conditions as a “browsewrap agreement,” have no application to the

14

enforceability of the Clause.

15

ASL has not met its “heavy burden” of providing any basis for the Court to

16

determine that the Clause is invalid. The Court agrees with GenTech that the forum-

17

selection clause in the Purchase Order is enforceable. That Clause provides for the

18

proper forum to be the state or the federal district court sitting in Wyoming County, New

19

York. The Court will transfer this case to the federal district court sitting in Wyoming

20

County, New York.

21

IV.

CONCLUSION

22

The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several

23

cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and

24

determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the

25

Motion to Transfer.

26

It is therefore ordered that the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3), or in the

27

alternative, motion to transfer venue (ECF No. 10) is granted. This case will be transferred

28

///

5

1

to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. In light of the

2

transfer of venue, the Court declines to address the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8).

3

The Clerk is directed to effectuate the transfer of this case.

4
DATED this 16th day of November 2017.
5
6

________________________________
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6