Summary
In Spuller v. Cashcall, No. 5:13–CV–806–D, 2014 WL 3923513 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 5, 2014), the Eastern District of North Carolina did not find that North Carolina public policy invalidated the forum selection clause based on similar arguments, so this court will focus its analysis on the tribal court jurisdiction issue, which was not presented to the Eastern District.
Summary of this case from Brown v. Western Sky Financial, LLCOpinion
No. 5:13-CV-806-D
03-05-2014
ORDER
On December 18, 2013, defendants Cashcall, Inc. and Delbert Services Corporation filed a joint motion to dismiss or in the alternative to stay and compel arbitration. See [D.E. 11]. On February 7, 2014, plaintiff Daniel Spuller responded in opposition. See [D.E. 14]. On February 24, 2014, defendants replied. See [D.E. 15].
Spuller has not plausibly alleged that either defendant obtained the forum selection clause by fraud or overreaching. See, e.g., Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 595 (1991); Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506.519 (1974); Bryant Elec. Co. v. Citv of Fredericksburg, 762 F.2d 1192, 1197 (4th Cir. 1985); cf. Compl. [D.E. 1-3] ¶¶ 1-58; Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Moreover, North Carolina public policy does not invalidate the forum selection clause. See, e.g., M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1,9-12 (1972); Albemarle Corp. v. AstraZeneca UK Ltd., 628 F.3d 643, 650 (4th Cir. 2010). Finally, Spuller has not plausibly alleged that the claims at issue are not suitable for arbitration. See, e.g., Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 130 S. Ct. 2772, 2777-79 (2010); Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 443-46 (2006); Green Tree Fin. Corp. - Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 91-92 (2000).
In light of the contract's forum selection clause, the court GRANTS the motion to dismiss [D.E. 14]. See, e.g., Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Texas, 134 S. Ct. 568, 583 n.8 (2013); Albemarle Corp., 628 F.3d at 650.
__________
JAMES C. DEVER III
Chief United States District Judge