Thabet Mgmt. v. Nautilus Ins. Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Valley Children's Hosp. v. Athenahealth, Inc.

    1:21-cv-01439-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal. May. 3, 2022)

    Id. at 77; see also Saccani Distrib. Co. v. Clean Cause, Inc., 2021 WL 3883879, at *5 (E.D. Cal. 2021) (“To be mandatory, a forum selection clause must contain wording suggesting that the parties intended to designate the specified forum as the exclusive forum.” (citing Thabet Mgmt., Inc. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 2021 WL 2555127, at *3 (D. Or. 2021)) (emphasis in original)). As noted, the forum selection clause in the Parties' Agreement states, in relevant part: “The applicable Federal District Court for the state in which the Party named as Defendant will be the exclusive venue for any court proceeding between the Parties arising out of, or in connection with, this Agreement.”

  2. Saccani Distrib. Co. v. Clean Cause, Inc.

    2:20-cv-01498-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2001)

    Prior to and following Atlantic Marine, district courts considering motions to transfer based on a forum-selection clause begin with an analysis of whether the clause is mandatory or permissive. See, e.g., Cooley v. Target Corp., No. SA CV 20-00876-DOC-JDE, 2020 WL 7230985, at * 2-3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2020); Thabet Mgmt., Inc. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., No. 6:20-cv-02111-AA, 2021 WL 2555127, at *3 (D. Or. Jun. 22, 2021). “The prevailing rule is . . . that where venue is specified with mandatory language the clause will be enforced.”