United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is defendants' motion, made pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), to transfer venue of the case to
the United States District Court, Southern District of
California, San Diego Division. (ECF No. 5). Defendants
further request that the court, should it deny that relief,
dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction or because
venue is improper. (Id.); see also Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(2), (3).
2, 2016, plaintiff filed its complaint in Nevada state court,
alleging seven causes of action against defendants in
relation to an alleged agreement to buy plaintiff's
interest in the 2716 North Tenaya Way, Las Vegas, Nevada
property. (ECF No. 1-1).
1, 2016, defendants Richard Pinto and Randall Ghezzi filed a
notice of removal in this court. (ECF No. 1). On July 14,
2016, all defendants filed the instant motion. (ECF No. 5).
Plaintiff filed a response (ECF No. 15), and defendants filed
a reply (ECF No. 21).
selection clauses in contracts are “presumptively
valid; the party seeking to avoid a forum selection clause
bears a ‘heavy burden' to establish a ground upon
which [the court] will conclude the clause is
unenforceable.” Doe 1 v. AOL LLC, 552 F.3d
1077, 1083 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting M/S Bremen v. Zapata
Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 17 (1972)). A forum-selection
clause is unenforceable “if enforcement would
contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which suit
is brought, whether declared by statute or by judicial
decision.” M/S Bremen, 407 U.S. at 15.
a valid forum selection clause is bargained for by the
parties and embodies their expectations as to where disputes
will be resolved, it should be ‘given controlling
weight in all but the most exceptional cases.'”
In re Orange, S.A., 818 F.3d 956, 961 (9th Cir.
2016) (quoting Atl. Marine Constr. Co., Inc. v. U.S.
Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Texas, 134 S.Ct. 568, 581
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) states: “For the convenience
of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a
district court may transfer any civil action to any other
district or division where it might have been brought or to
any district or division to which all parties have
forum selection clause changes a district court's §
1404(a) analysis in three ways:
“the plaintiff's choice of forum merits no
weight” and “the [clause-defying] plaintiff bears
the burden of establishing that transfer to the forum for
which the parties bargained is unwarranted”;
district court “should not consider arguments about the
parties' private interests”; and (3) “when a
party bound by a forum-selection clause flouts its
contractual obligation and files suit in a different forum, a
§ 1404(a) transfer of venue will not carry . . . the
original venue's choice-of-law rules . . . .”
Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist.
of Texas, 134 S.Ct. 568, 581-82 (2013).
Transfer of Venue
Which contract(s) apply
argue that this court should transfer venue under the
authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to give effect to
venue-selection contract clauses in two of the allegedly
underlying contracts ...