Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0266-15T2
06-17-2016
LEONID V. OGORODNIKOV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SIMON DIKKER, Defendant-Respondent.
Paul Leodori argued the cause for appellant (Law Offices of Paul Leodori, P.C. and Jeffrey Dannenberg (Kestenbaum, Dannenberg & Klein, L.L.P.) of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, attorneys; Mr. Leodori and Mr. Dannenberg, on the brief). David H. Pikus argued the cause for respondent (Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Pikus, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Reisner and Hoffman. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-868-14. Paul Leodori argued the cause for appellant (Law Offices of Paul Leodori, P.C. and Jeffrey Dannenberg (Kestenbaum, Dannenberg & Klein, L.L.P.) of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, attorneys; Mr. Leodori and Mr. Dannenberg, on the brief). David H. Pikus argued the cause for respondent (Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Pikus, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Leonid V. Ogorodnikov appeals from a May 29, 2015 order, dismissing his complaint against defendant Simon Dikker pursuant to a contractual forum selection clause providing that any disputes between the parties would be litigated in Russia. The dismissal was without prejudice to plaintiff's right to file his complaint in a Russian court as provided in the forum selection clause. Plaintiff also appeals from a July 29, 2015 order denying reconsideration.
The clause provided: "Any and all disputes and discrepancies between the Parties shall be settled through negotiations and should the Parties fail to come to an agreement all and any disputes shall be considered by Butyrsky District Court of Moscow located at: 54 Dmitrovskoye Hwy, Moscow, 127238." --------
Absent exceptions not relevant here, forum selection clauses are valid and enforceable in our courts. See Caspi v. Microsoft Network, L.L.C., 323 N.J. Super. 118, 122 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 162 N.J. 199 (1999). We have reviewed the record de novo, as is appropriate in a case involving a trial court's interpretation of a contract and its application of a contractual forum selection clause. See Copelco Capital, Inc. v. Shapiro, 331 N.J. Super. 1, 5 (App. Div. 2000). We conclude that Judge James J. DeLuca reached the correct result, and we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in his written statements of reasons accompanying the two orders.
Plaintiff's appellate arguments are completely without merit and, except for the following comments, they do not warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
The complaint concerns a dispute over a commercial deal that was negotiated in Russia, between two parties who resided in Russia at the time, concerning property located in Russia. The contract containing the forum selection clause was drafted by plaintiff's attorney, was written in Russian, and was signed in Russia. Important witnesses, and public records concerning the case, are located in Russia.
Plaintiff speculates that defendant, who now resides in New Jersey, will be unwilling to return to Russia to participate in litigation there. He hypothesizes that if he files the complaint in Russia and serves the complaint on defendant in the United States, defendant will be able to have the Russian complaint dismissed for lack of in personam jurisdiction. He also speculates that if the Russian court entertained his complaint, New Jersey courts would not enforce a Russian judgment, on the theory that the Russian court did not have "personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor." N.J.S.A. 2A:49A-20. Plaintiff has provided no legal support whatsoever for that hypothetical. He has not cited any Russian statutes or case law, nor provided a report of any Russian legal expert, to support his implicit claim that the courts of Russia would not have in personam jurisdiction over defendant merely because defendant now resides in the United States.
Moreover, at oral argument of this appeal, we specifically posed plaintiff's hypothetical to defendant's counsel. Defendant's counsel unequivocally responded that his client would not raise the defense of lack of in personam jurisdiction, and in fact conceded that, by invoking the forum selection clause, his client had waived the defense. See Nat'l Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311, 315-16, 84 S. Ct. 411, 414, 11 L. Ed. 2d 354, 357-58 (1964).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION