Opinion
No. 2:05-cv-2564-GEB-KJM.
March 15, 2006
ORDER
This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).
Defendant National Truck Protection Co., Inc. ("NTP") moves to dismiss all of Plaintiffs' claims against it based on the contention that venue is improper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). Plaintiffs oppose the motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are citizens and residents of Maryland. In April 2005, Plaintiffs bought a 2000 Volvo, model VNL660 truck (the "truck") from Defendant Arrow Truck Sales, Inc. ("Arrow"), a used truck dealer located in California. On May 18, 2005, Plaintiffs entered into a service agreement (the "Agreement") with NTP, a New Jersey corporation, under which NTP agreed to pay for certain repairs to the truck. The Agreement contained the following clause:
XV. Consent to Jurisdiction and Venue You and NTP agree that any legal or equitable action for claims, debts or obligations arising out of or to enforce the terms of this plan shall be brought in the United States District Court for the District of NJ or in the Superior Court of NJ, Bergen County, NJ; and that either Court shall have in personam jurisdiction over You and Us and the venue of the action shall be appropriate in each court.
In August of 2005, the truck malfunctioned. Plaintiffs informed NTP of the malfunction and NTP directed Plaintiffs to bring the truck to a repair facility in Virginia. At the repair facility the source of the malfunction was identified. After being informed of the source of the truck's malfunction, NTP refused to pay for the necessary repairs, based on the position that the repairs were not covered under the Agreement. Plaintiffs then had the truck repaired at their own expense. Subsequently, Plaintiffs brought the instant lawsuit in which it asserts claims against NTP for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
DISCUSSION
NTP argues that Plaintiffs' claims against it must be dismissed because the forum selection clause in the Agreement establishes the District of New Jersey as the exclusive forum for Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs do not contest the application of the forum selection clause to their claims or NTP's construction of the forum selection clause. Rather, Plaintiffs argue that the forum selection clause is unreasonable and should not be enforced because: (1) they entered into the Agreement "without actually understanding the effect of [the forum selection clause]" and (2) enforcement of the forum selection clause would cause them "extreme hardship." (Pls.' Opp'n at 6-7.)
"[F]orum selection clauses are prima facie valid and should not be set aside unless the party challenging enforcement of such a provision can show it is unreasonable under the circumstances."Argueta v. Banco Mexicano, S.A., 87 F.3d 320, 325 (9th Cir. 1996) (quotation marks and citations omitted). The party challenging the forum selection clause has "the heavy burden of showing that trial in the chosen forum would be so difficult and inconvenient that the party would effectively be denied a meaningful day in court." Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). If the party challenging the forum selection clause "fails to come forward with anything beyond general and conclusory allegations of fraud and inconvenience, the court must uphold the agreement." Sarmiento v. BMG Entm't, 326 F. Supp. 2d 1108, 1111 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (citing Spradlin v. Lear Siegler Mgmt. Serv. Co., Inc. 926 F.2d 865, 868 (9th Cir. 1991)).
Plaintiffs argue the forum selection clause is unreasonable because Plaintiffs did not understand the effect of the forum selection clause since they "have a very limited understanding of the English language and legal terminology" and "are minority truck owners who were coerced" by a "huge organization." (Pls. Opp'n at 6-7.) This argument is not supported with any evidence. Such "general and conclusory allegations" do not show that enforcing the forum selection clause would be unreasonable.Sarmiento, 326 F. Supp. 2d at 1112 (party's broad, conclusory allegations of undue influence and inability to understand the agreement were insufficient to find enforcement of forum selection was unreasonable).
Plaintiffs also argue that the forum selection clause is unreasonable because it would be "extensively burdensome and unconscionable to require [them] to bring two lawsuits [—] one in New Jersey [against NTP] and another in California [against Arrow]" and it would be an "extreme hardship for [them] to transport the witnesses in this case [, who live in California,] to New Jersey." (Pls.' Opp'n at 7-8.) While it may be more convenient for Plaintiffs to litigate a single action in California, it is Plaintiffs' burden to show that requiring them to litigate their claims in New Jersey would be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that they would for all practical purposes be deprived of their day in court. Argueta, 87 F.3d at 325. Plaintiffs' "general and conclusory allegations" of hardship and inconvenience are insufficient to make that showing.Sarmiento, 326 F. Supp. 2d at 1112.
CONCLUSION
Since Plaintiffs have failed to show that enforcement of the forum selection clause in their Agreement with NTP would be unreasonable, NTP's motion to dismiss for improper venue is granted. Therefore, NTP is dismissed as a party in this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.