Summary
holding that remand from the Western District of Washington Tacoma Division was not required where the forum selection clause states: "Venue for any action under this Agreement shall be in Clark County, Washington, U.S.A."
Summary of this case from Autobidmaster LLC v. MartyshenkoOpinion
CASE NO. C13-5695 BHS
10-28-2013
INSTITUTE OF INSPECTION, CLEANING AND RESTORATION CERTIFICATION, Plaintiff, v. TEXTILE CONSULTANTS, INC., Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
REMAND
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certification's ("IICRC") motion to remand (Dkt. 11). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion for the reasons stated herein.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 22, 2013, IICRC filed a complaint in the Clark County Superior Court for the State of Washington. Dkt. 1, ¶ 2. IICRC alleges Defendant Textile Consultants, Inc. ("Textile") breached several contracts between the parties. Dkt. 1, Exh. 1 ("Comp").
On August 18, 2013, Textile removed the matter to this Court. Dkt. 1.
On September 12, 2013, IICRC filed a motion to remand. Dkt. 9. IICRC argues that remand is appropriate because the forum selection clause in the contract provides that "Venue for any action under this Agreement shall be in Clark County, Washington, U.S.A." Id. On October 7, 2013, Textile responded. Dkt. 11. On October 11, 2013, IICRC replied. Dkt. 12.
II. DISCUSSION
A mandatory forum selection clause is enforceable unless the resisting party can establish its unreasonableness by showing that "trial in the chosen forum would be so difficult and inconvenient that the party effectively would be denied a meaningful day in court." Pelleport Investors, Inc. v. Budco Quality Theatres, Inc., 741 F.2d 273, 281 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 18 (1972)). With regard to the forum at issue, Congress has explicitly stated that "Court for the Western District of Washington shall be held at Bellingham, Seattle, Tacoma, and Vancouver." 28 U.S.C. § 128. The Ninth Circuit has held "that a forum selection clause that vests 'exclusive jurisdiction and venue' in the courts 'in' a county provides venue in the state and federal courts located in that county." Simonoff v. Expedia, Inc., 643 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011).
In this case, venue for federal court is provided for in Clark County, Washington. Although as a practical matter jury trials must be held in Tacoma, the Court is unaware of any exception to federal jurisdiction based on the practical limitations of the building located in a specifically identified city.
III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that IICRC's motion to remand (Dkt. 9) is DENIED.
_____________
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge