Makarim v. Signtronix Inc et al

Filing 15

ORDER denying 8 Motion to Dismiss, as more fully set out. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 8/7/18. (jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DR. CHRISTINA MAKARIM,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SIGNTRONIX, INC., a California Corporation, )
and NORTHERN LEASING, INC. d/b/a
)
Northern Insta-Lease, Northern Leasing and
)
Equipment, Northern Systems, Inc., a New
)
York corporation,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. CIV-18-303-R

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Northern Leasing Systems, Inc.’s Redacted Motion
to Dismiss, Doc. 8. Defendant improperly relies on a contract outside Plaintiff’s complaint
to support its forum non conveniens argument for dismissal. See Doc. 9, 10 (Equipment
Finance Lease filed under seal). To avoid converting Defendant’s motion to one for
summary judgment, the Court cannot consider the contract—a “matter[] outside the
pleading”—because it is not (1) “referred to in the complaint,” (2) “central to
. . . [P]laintiff’s claim,” and (3) “indisputably authentic.” GFF Corp. v. Associated
Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 130 F.3d 1381, 1384 (10th Cir. 1997) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)) (emphasis added). The “lease application” contract from Defendant’s Motion is
referred to in the complaint (Doc. 1-1, at 4), but it is unclear if the contract is central to
Plaintiff’s claims, and the parties strongly dispute the authenticity and validity of it. See
Doc. 13, at 2–4; Doc. 14. Thus, the Court cannot consider “the forum selection clause
1

between Northern Leasing and Plaintiff” at this stage. Doc. 8, at 2. The Motion (Doc. 8) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of August 2018.

2