Case ID: f-appx_434/html/0046-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FUTURE INDUSTRIES OF AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ADVANCED UV LIGHT GMBH, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-3928-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Oct. 19, 2011.
    Gerald Weiner (Judith Mauzaka, on the brief), Weinstein, Weiner, Ignal, Napolita-no & Shapiro, P.C., Bridgeport, CT, for Appellant.
    Gregory F. Hauser, Wuersch & Gering LLP, New York, NY, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Future Industries of America, Inc. (“Future”) appeals from a judgment of the District Court granting the motion to dismiss of defendant-appellee Advanced UV Light GmbH (“AUVL”). See Future Indus. of Am., Inc., v. Advanced UV Light GMBH, No. 3:09-cv-966 (JCH), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90310 (D.Conn. Sept. 1, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case.

This appeal arises out of a two-count diversity action brought by Future against AUVL, a German company, for breach of contract and unfair trade practices in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”), Conn. Gen.Stat. §§ 42-110a et seq. The contract between the parties contained a forum selection clause granting jurisdiction to a German court, as well as a choice of law clause dictating that the contract should be governed by German law. In deciding AUVL’s motion to dismiss, the District Court ruled that the forum selection clause survived the termination of the contract, that the clause was mandatory rather than permissive, and that the clause applied to both Future’s common law claim and its statutory claim. On appeal plaintiff argues that each of these rulings was in error.

Having conducted an independent review of the record, we find no error in the District Court’s comprehensive analysis of plaintiffs claims. Therefore, we AFFIRM the judgment on appeal for substantially the same reasons stated by the District Court in its thorough and well-reasoned Memorandum and Order of September 1, 2010.