Case ID: f-appx_373/html/0697-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CALISHER & ASSOCIATES, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee, v. RGCM, LLC, a Texas limited liability company; Mastercrafters Construction & Development, Inc., a Texas corporation; Paul Manoharan, an individual, aka Paulrajan Manoharan; Ron Rock, an individual, Defendants-Appellants, Rio Grande Medical Center, Ltd., aka Rio Grande City Medical Center, Ltd., AKA Tropy Plex Medical Center, Ltd., aka RGCMC, Ltd., Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant. Calisher & Associates, Inc., a California corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee, v. Pharr Medical Center Ltd., a Texas limited partnership, DBA Valley Medical Center, Ltd., Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant, VMC, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, aka VMC General, LLC; Mastercrafters Construction & Development Inc., a Texas corporation; Paul Manoharan, an individual AKA Paulrajan Manoharan; Ron Rock, an individual, Defendants-Appellants, and RGCM, LLC, a Texas limited liability company; Rio Grande Medical Center, Ltd., aka Rio Grande City Medical Center Ltd., aka Tropy Plex Medical Center, Ltd., aka RGCMC, Ltd., Defendants.
    Nos. 08-56978, 08-56979.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 3, 2010.
    
    Filed April 2, 2010.
    John Schroeder, Esquire, Schroeder and Associates ALC, Brea, CA, for Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee.
    Martin Frankel, Counsel, Martin Frankel Law Office, Mission, TX, for Defendants-Appellants/Defendant-eounter-claimant-Appellant.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge, and GETTLEMAN, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Robert W. Gettleman, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

The district court remanded these cases to the Los Angeles Superior Court after finding that the contracts at issue selected that court as the exclusive forum for the parties’ dispute. We affirm.

We have jurisdiction to hear defendants’ appeals from the district court’s remand order. See Kamm v. ITEX Corp., 568 F.3d 752, 757 (9th Cir.2009). Federal law governs the enforceability of forum selection clauses in cases removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. See Manetti-Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci Am., Inc., 858 F.2d 509, 513 (9th Cir.1988). We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of a forum selection clause. See Hunt Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Supreme Oil Co., 817 F.2d 75, 77 (9th Cir.1987).

The clause — stating that “litigation shall be subject to the laws and Rules of Evidence of the state of California with the venue being Los Angeles County Superior Court” — requires that claims arising from the contract be litigated in the Los Ange-les County Superior Court. “This language requires enforcement of the clause because [defendants] not only consented to the jurisdiction of the state courts of [California], but further agreed by mandatory language that the venue for all actions arising out of the [contract] would be [Los Angeles County Superior Court].” Docksider, Ltd. v. Sea Tech., Ltd., 875 F.2d 762, 764 (9th Cir.1989) (interpreting the clause “Venue of any action brought hereunder shall be deemed to be in Gloucester County, Virginia.”).

The clause does not use permissive language nor does it merely evince consent to the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Superi- or Court. The clause is therefore distinguishable from the clauses at issue in the cases relied on by defendants. See Hunt Wesson, 817 F.2d at 76-78 (“The courts of California, County of Orange, shall have jurisdiction over the parties in any action at law relating to the subject matter or the interpretation of this contract.”); N. Cal. Dist. Council of Laborers v. Pittsburg-Des Moines Steel Co., 69 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir.1995) (“A decision of the Board of Adjustment ... or the decision of a permanent arbitrator shall be enforceable by a petition to confirm an arbitration award filed in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, State of California.”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.