Uni-Pixel Displays Inc. v. Conductive Inkjet Technology Limited
Filing
29
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 9 MOTION to Remand, denying 9 Request for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and mooting 9 Request for Expedited Consideration of Oral Argument. This action is remanded to the 284th Judicial District Court of Montgomery County, Texas. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
UNI-PIXEL DISPLAYS, INC . ,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
v.
CONDUCTIVE INKJET TECHNOLOGY
LTD.,
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13-0202
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Uni-Pixel Displays, Inc. ("Uni-Pixel") originally
brought this action against Defendant Conductive Inkjet Technology
Limited
("CIT")
in
the
284th
Judicial
District
Court
of
Montgomery County, Texas, where it was filed under Cause No. 13-0100561.
CIT filed a timely notice of removal.
Pending before the
court is Uni-Pixel's Motion for Remand, Request for Attorneys' Fees
and Costs, and Request
Argument
for Expedited
("Motion for Remand")
Consideration and Oral
(Docket Entry No. 9).
For the
reasons explained below, the motion will be granted in part, and
the case will be remanded.
I.
A.
Background
Facts
Uni-Pixel and CIT are technology companies that have exchanged
confidential
information
over
the
course
of
their
business
relationship. Uni-Pixel is incorporated under the laws of Delaware
and maintains its principal place of business in Texas.'
CIT is
incorporated under the laws of and maintains its registered office
in the United Kingdomm2 On three separate occasions Uni-Pixel and
CIT entered into a non-disclosure agreement ("NDA") in which each
party
promised
not
to
disclose
information to third par tie^.^
any
The
exchanged
first NDA
confidential
was
effective
beginning in 2005, the second in 2006, and the third in 2 0 1 0 . ~ The
2010 NDA, unlike the prior NDAs, contained a venue-selection
clause:
"THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, EXCEPT FOR ITS
RULES
CONCERNING
THE
CONFLICT OF
LAWS, AND
EXCLUSIVELY IN THE COURTS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
NDA also included an integration clause:
VENUE
TEXAS."^
SHALL LIE
The 2010
"This Agreement is the
sole agreement between the Parties with respect to the exchange of
l~otice of Removal, Docket Entry No. 1, ¶ 4; Plaintifffs
Verified Original Petition, and Applications for Temporary and
Permanent Injunctions ("Original Petition"), Ex. B to Notice of
Removal, Docket Entry No. 1-1, ¶ 4.
2 ~ o t i c e Removal, Docket Entry No. 9,
of
3 ~ o t i o nfor Remand, Docket Entry No.
Removal, Docket Entry No. 1, ¶ 9.
¶
5.
9, p. 1; Notice of
4~utual
Non-Disclosure Agreement ("2005 NDA") , Ex. 1 to Motion
for Remand, Docket Entry No. 9-1, ¶ 2; Agreement for Exchange of
Proprietary or Confidential Information ("2006 NDA") , Ex. 2 to
Motion for Remand, Docket Entry No. 9-2, ¶ 3; Mutual Non-Disclosure
Agreement ("2010 NDA") , Ex. 3 to Motion for Remand, Docket Entry
No. 9-3, ¶ 2.
52010 NDA, Ex. 3 to Motion for Remand, Docket Entry No. 9-3,
¶
7.
Confidential Information divulged pursuant to the terms hereof.
This Agreement supersedes any and all prior agreements.""
CIT commenced two actions in June of 2012 against Uni-Pixel in
a United Kingdom
Uni-Pixel's
("UK") court "to remedy what it contends are
breaches of the 2005 NDA and equitable duties of
confidence owed by Uni-Pixel to CIT."'
In the UK litigation CIT
seeks money damages as well as an injunction to prevent Uni-Pixelfs
further use of confidential information.'
B.
Procedural History
Uni-Pixel
filed its Original Petition in state court on
January 18, 2013.'
Uni-Pixel asserts a cause of action for breach
of contract, alleging that CIT violated the venue-selection clause
contained in the 2010 NDA when it initiated the UK litigation.''
Uni-Pixel requests declaratory judgment that Uni-Pixel did not
breach "(i) the terms of the 2010 Agreement or (ii) the terms of
the 2006 Agreement or (iii) the terms of the 2005 Agreement which
were superseded by the 2010 Agreement.""
Uni-Pixel also requests
7 ~ o t i c e Removal, Docket Entry No. 1,
of
¶
10.
'original Petition, Ex. B to Notice of Removal, Docket Entry
No. 1-1.
a declaratory judgment that, under the 2010 NDA, Montgomery County,
Texas is the exclusive venue for all disputes arising out of any of
the
NDAs.12
Lastly,
relying
on
the
venue-selection clause,
Uni-Pixel seeks an injunction to prevent CIT from taking further
action in the UK litigation.13
CIT timely removed the action to this court on January 25,
2013, asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U. S .C.
Uni-Pixel filed its Motion
1332 . I 4
for Remand on February 4, 2013.15
Uni-Pixel does not deny that the requirements of 5
satisfied.
§
1332 are
Instead, Uni-Pixel argues that the venue-selection
clause requires remand because Montgomery County, Texas, is the
exclusive venue for claims related to the 2010 N D A . ~ ~
Uni-Pixel
also requests costs and attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C.
CIT opposes the motion on two grounds.
§
1447 (c).I7
First, CIT argues that the
venue-selection clause does not control this case because the 2010
NDA does not "supersede the contractual confidentiality provisions
of the 2005 NDA."'~ Second, CIT argues that Uni-Pixel waived its
14~otice Removal, Docket Entry No. 1,
of
¶
2.
l5~otion
for Remand, Docket Entry No. 9.
18~onductive
Inkjet Technology Ltd.'s Opposition to Uni-Pixel
Display Inc.'s Motion for Remand ("CITrs sition" ion"), Docket Entry
No. 15, p. 9.
right to challenge removal by consolidating claims based on the
2010 NDA with claims based on the 2005 NDA and the 2006 NDA.19
In
its reply Uni-Pixel maintains that the venue-selection clause
requires remand.20
11.
Under 28 U.S.C.
§
Leaal Standard
1441(a)~' any state court civil action over
which a federal court would have original jurisdiction may be
removed from state to federal court. See Gasch v. Hartford Acc.
Indem. Co., 491 F.3d 278, 281 (5th Cir. 2007).
&
The removing party
bears the burden of showing that subject matter jurisdiction exists
and that the removal procedure was properly followed.
Prudential Prop.
&
Mansuno v.
Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir.
2002). Removal jurisdiction depends on the plaintifffs state court
pleadings at the time of removal.
Beneficial Nat'l
Bank v.
Anderson, 123 S. Ct. 2058, 2062 (2003). Ambiguities or doubts are
to be construed against removal and in favor of remand.
Manquno,
276 F.3d at 723.
20~laintiff'sReply Brief in Support of Its Motion for Remand
and Request for Attorneys' Fees and Costs ("Uni-Pixel' s Reply"),
Docket Entry No. 21, p. 1.
" ~ i t l e 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) provides: "Except as otherwise
expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in
a State court of which the district courts of the United States
have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the
defendants, to the district court of the United States for the
district and division embracing the place where such action is
pending. "
A party may contractually waive its right to removal "by
explicitly stating that it is doing so, by allowing the other party
the right to choose venue, or by establishing an exclusive venue
within the contract."
376 F.3d 501, 504
Citv of New Orleans v. Mun. Admin. Servs.,
(5th Cir. 2004).
To prevent a party from
exercising the right to removal the waiver of that right must be
"
'clear and unequivocal. ' "
Llovds
Underwriters,
Accordingly,
to
944
establish
- (quoting McDermott Intfl, Inc. v.
Id.
F.2d
1199,
exclusive
1212
venue,
(5th Cir.
a
1991)).
venue-selection
clause2* "must go beyond establishing that a particular forum will
have jurisdiction and must clearly demonstrate the parties' intent
to make that jurisdiction exclusive."
504.
New Orleans, 376 F.3d at
The language of the partiesf contract also determines which
causes of action are governed by
the venue-selection
clause.
Marinechance Shippins, Ltd. v. Sebastian, 143 F.3d 216, 222 (5th
Cir. 1998). Federal law applies to determine the enforceability of
venue-selection clauses in diversity cases. Alliance Health Group,
553 F.3d at 399; see also Blueskvqreenland Envtl. Solutions, LLC v.
Rentar Envtl. Solutions, Inc., 2012 WL 423399, at *5 (S.D. Tex.
Feb. 8, 2012)
("'In
diversity cases, federal law governs the
analysis of the effect and scope of forum selection clauses.,"
2 2 ~ naccordance with the language used in the parties'
agreement, the court employs the term "venue-selection clause"
instead of the more common "forum-selection clause." There is no
difference in meaning between the two. See Alliance Health Group
v. Bridqins Health Options, 553 F.3d 397, 399 (5th Cir. 2008).
(quoting Jones v. GNC Franchisinq, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 497 (9th
Cir. 2000))).
111.
Analvsis
As the removing party, CIT bears the burden of showing that
removal was proper.
See Mansuno, 276 F.3d at 723.
Uni-Pixelfs
sole basis for its Motion for Remand is that the venue-selection
clause in the 2010 NDA renders removal improper.23 CIT argues that
the venue-selection clause does not apply because the 2010 NDA did
CIT further argues that Uni-Pixel
not supersede the 2005 N D A . ~ ~
waived
the
right
to
enforce
the
venue-selection
clause
by
consolidating claims based on the 2005 NDA and the 2006 NDA -i.e., agreements that did not contain venue-selection clauses -with claims based on the 2010 NDA.25 The court is not persuaded by
either argument.
For the venue-selection clause in the 2010 NDA to prevent CIT
from exercising its removal rights the clause must be exclusive,
see
- New Orleans, 376 F.3d at 504, and must govern the claims at
issue.
See Marinechance Shippinq, 143 F.3d at 222.
provides that
"VENUE SHALL LIE EXCLUSIVELY
The 2010 NDA
IN THE COURTS OF
23~otion
for Remand, Docket Entry No. 9; Uni-Pixel's Reply,
Docket Entry No. 21.
2 4 ~ ~ Opposition, Docket Entry No. 15, p. 9.
~ ' s
MONTGOMERY COUNTY TEXAS."^^
The court concludes that this language
establishes a "clear and unequivocal" waiver of the right to
remove.
See Collin County v. Siemens Business Services, Inc., 250
F. App'x
45, 47 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding that removal from state
court in Collin County, Texas, was improper where clause provided
that "venue for all actions in connection with this Agreement shall
lie exclusively in Collin County, Texas" (internal quotation marks
omitted)); Dixon v. TSE Int'l Inc., 330 F.3d 396, 398 (5th Cir.
2003) ("By agreeing to litigate all relevant disputes solely in
'the
Courts
removal.").
of
Texas,'
[the defendant] waived
its
right to
Accordingly, the venue-selection clause provides a
valid waiver of removal rights as to disputes falling within its
scope.
The language of the venue-selection clause is not limited in
scope to certain categories of claims.
Cf. Collin Countv, 250
F. App'x at 47 (venue-selection clause provided that "venue f o r a l l
a c t i o n s i n connection w i t h t h i s Agreement shall lie exclusively in
Collin County, Texas" (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks
omitted)); Dixon, 330 F.3d at 397 (venue-selection clause applied
to " a l l c o n t r o v e r s i e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e e x e c u t i o n , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
or performance o f t h i s Agreement").
2010 NDA
that venue
Instead, CIT agreed in the
shall lie exclusively
in the
courts of
Montgomery, Texas, without regard to the nature of the claim.
262010 NDA, Ex. 3 to Motion for Remand, Docket Entry No. 9-3,
¶
7.
-8-
The
court
concludes
that
this
broad
language
is
most
reasonably interpreted to encompass the claims in Uni-Pixel's
Original Petition.
See Kochert v. Adasen Medical Int'l, Inc., 491
F.3d 674, 676 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding that fraudulent inducement
claim fell within scope of venue-selection clause providing only
that " lbluyer agrees to consent to jurisdiction, venue and forum in
the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia, United States of
America"
(internal quotation marks omitted))
.
In the breach of
contract action Uni-Pixel alleges that CIT violated the "exclusive
choice-of-venue clause for Montgomery County, Te~as."'~ As the
remedy for that breach Uni-Pixel seeks specific performance of the
venue-selection
clause
in
the
2010 NDA.~*
Furthermore, the
declaratory judgment actions request declarations that require
interpretation of the 2010 NDA -- specifically, whether the 2010
NDA superseded the previous NDAS.~' Finally, based on the venueselection clause in the 2010 NDA, Uni-Pixel seeks to enjoin the UK
litigati~n.~' Each of these claims is based on the 2010 NDA.
The
earlier NDAs are invoked only for the purpose of seeking a judgment
that the 2010 NDA superseded those agreements.
270riginal Petition, Ex. B to Notice of Removal, Docket Entry
No. 1-1, ¶ 28.
2 - . 30.
8~d ¶
" - ¶ ¶ 20-24, 31-34.
~d.
30&
¶¶
35-52.
The court therefore rejects CITfs argument that Uni-Pixel has
consolidated claims based on all three NDAs because none of the
claims are based on either of the earlier NDAs. Moreover, although
CIT argues at length that the 2010 NDA does not supersede the 2005
NDA, that question is not for this court to decide in ruling on the
Motion for Remand.
Having concluded that the venue-selection
clause is exclusive, the court is only required to decide whether
the venue-selection clause governs the claims at issue in this
suit.
Because the court concludes that the claims are based on
only the 2010 NDA, the venue-selection clause applies.
of
Uni-Pixel' s
claims,
including
the
The merits
effectiveness
of
the
integration clause in the 2010 NDA, will be decided in state court.
IV.
Costs, Expenses, and Attornevsf Fees
Uni-Pixel also seeks reimbursement of its costs, expenses, and
attorneys'
fees under 28 U.S.C.
§
1447 (c).31
"Absent unusual
circumstances, courts may award attorneyfs fees under
§
1447 (c)
only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable
basis for seeking removal." Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 126
S. Ct. 704, 711 (2005).
Even though the court concludes that
removal was improper, the grounds on which CIT removed the action
were not objectively unreasonable.
The court will therefore deny
Uni-Pixel's request for costs, expenses, and attorneysf fees.32
31~otion
for Remand, Docket Entry No. 9, pp. 11-12.
32~ni-~ixel's
request for expedited briefing and expedited
consideration of the Motion for Remand is moot.
V.
Conclusion and Order
The venue-selection clause in the 2010 NDA is "clear and
unequivocal" as to exclusivity, and Uni-Pixel's claims fall within
its scope. The court therefore concludes that the venue-selection
clause in the 2010 NDA prevents CIT from properly exercising its
right to removal.
Accordingly, Uni-Pixel's
Motion for Remand,
Request for Attorneysf Fees and Costs, and Request for Expedited
Consideration and Oral Argument (Docket Entry No. 9) is GRANTED in
part, DENIED in part, and MOOT in part, as follows :
(1) The Motion for Remand is GRANTED, and this action
is REMANDED to the 284th Judicial District Court of
Montgomery County, Texas. The Clerk of Court is
directed to promptly send a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order of remand to the District Clerk
of Montgomery County, Texas.
(2) The Request
DENIED.
for Attorneys'
Fees
and
Costs
is
(3) The Request for Expedited Consideration and Oral
Argument is MOOT.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 30th day of April, 2013.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?