Case Title: Castleberry v. Angie's List, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1180241

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2019-05-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
Rel:   May 17, 2019 
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334)
229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made
before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
 OCTOBER TERM, 2018-2019
_________________________
1180241
_________________________
Jessie Castleberry and Rickey Castleberry 
v.
Angie's List, Inc.
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court
(CV-18-900500)
SELLERS, Justice.
Jessie Castleberry and Rickey Castleberry appeal from an
order of the Montgomery Circuit Court dismissing the
Castleberrys' claims against Angie's List, Inc., based on a
1180241
forum-selection clause in a contract between Angie's List and
the Castleberrys.  We affirm the trial court's order.
Angie's List operates a paid membership service that
enables its members to search for local service providers and
to submit and consider reviews and ratings relating to those
service providers.  The Castleberrys, who are father and son,
became members of Angie's List in 2014.  They claim that they
used their membership with Angie's List to locate a
contractor, Dream Baths of Alabama, LLC ("Dream Baths"), which
the Castleberrys hired to renovate a bathroom in Jessie
Castleberry's house to make it handicapped accessible. 
According to the Castleberrys, Dream Baths was not properly
licensed and poorly performed the work it contracted to do.
The Castleberrys sued Dream Baths, asserting various
claims related to the renovation.  They also named Angie's
List as a defendant in the action, alleging that it had
misrepresented Dream Baths' qualifications.  Against Angie's
List, the Castleberrys alleged breach of contract, breach of
a duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, unjust
enrichment, and deceptive trade practices.
2
1180241
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P., Angie's List
filed a motion to dismiss the Castleberrys' claims against it
based on a forum-selection clause set out in the membership
agreement between Angie's List and the Castleberrys.  That
clause provides:
"This Agreement and the relationship between You
[the Castleberrys] and Angie's List will be governed
by the laws of the State of Indiana, notwithstanding
the choice of law provisions of the venue where any
action is brought, where the violation occurred,
where You may be located or any other Jurisdiction.
You agree and consent to the exclusive Jurisdiction
of the state or federal courts located in Marion
County, Indiana and waive any defense of lack of
personal jurisdiction or improper venue or forum non
conveniens to a claim brought in such court, except
that Angie's List may elect, in its sole discretion,
to litigate the action in the county or state where
any breach by You occurred or where You can be
found. You agree that regardless of any statute or
law to the contrary, any claim or cause of action
arising out [sic] or related to Your use of the
Service or this Agreement shall be filed within one
(1) year after such claim or cause of action arose
or will forever be barred."
The trial court determined that the quoted clause is "a valid
and enforceable forum-selection clause that provides for the
exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Marion County,
Indiana."  Accordingly, the trial court granted Angie's List's
motion to dismiss.  Later, the trial court denied the
Castleberrys' 
motion 
to 
reconsider 
the 
dismissal and, 
pursuant
3
1180241
to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., certified its order of
dismissal as final for purposes of appeal.  The Castleberrys
timely appealed.
The Castleberrys argue first that the trial court erred in
determining that the contractual provision in question is a
forum-selection clause allowing Angie's List to force its
members to litigate their claims against Angie's List in the
courts of Marion County, Indiana.  The parties agree that, for
purposes of this case, Alabama law applies to the construction
and validity of the clause at issue.
The Castleberrys point to Ex parte Dan Tucker Auto Sales,
Inc., 718 So. 2d 33, 35-36 (Ala. 1998), for the propositions
that "[g]eneral contract law requires a court to enforce an
unambiguous, lawful contract, as it is written" and that,
"[w]hen interpreting a contract, a court should give the terms
of the agreement their clear and plain meaning and should
presume that the parties intended what the terms of the
agreement clearly state."  The Castleberrys assert that the
language used in the forum-selection clause is 
unambiguous and
that its clear and plain meaning is that Angie's List members
agree to litigate in Indiana only those claims brought against
4
1180241
them by Angie's List and not claims brought by them against
Angie's List.
We disagree.  The first sentence of the forum-selection
clause provides for the application of Indiana law in "any
action."  The second sentence provides that Angie's List
members "agree and consent to the exclusive Jurisdiction of
the state or federal courts located in Marion County, Indiana"
and that, with respect to actions brought in those courts,
members waive defenses such as lack of personal jurisdiction,
improper venue, or forum non conveniens.  We do not read the
reference to the waiver of potential defenses by Angie's List
members in actions brought against them in the courts of
Marion County, Indiana, as limiting the earlier provision
stating that Angie's List members agree to the exclusive
jurisdiction of those courts.  Finally, the last sentence of
the clause references "any claim or cause of action arising
out [of] or related to [Angie's List members'] use of [Angie's
List] Service or [the membership] Agreement" and purports to
impose a one-year limitations period on such claims.  Based on
the entirety of the clause, we simply cannot agree with the
Castleberrys that the clause unambiguously means that Angie's
5
1180241
List can force its members to litigate in the courts of Marion
County, Indiana, only those claims brought against members by
Angie's List in those courts.  To the contrary, we agree with
Angie's List that the plain meaning of the language used makes
the clause applicable to actions filed against Angie's List by
Angie's List members.1
1In their opening brief to this Court, the Castleberrys
suggest that the use of the term "exclusive jurisdiction" in
the forum-selection clause is intended to establish only that
Angie's List members cannot object to a lack of personal
jurisdiction over them with respect to claims brought against
them in the courts of Marion County, Indiana.  They do not,
however, provide a persuasive explanation for why the clause
uses the term "exclusive" and not "personal" to qualify
"jurisdiction," if the intent was to waive objections to
personal jurisdiction.  In addition, it is noteworthy that the
clause later expressly provides that Angie's List members will
not contest personal jurisdiction in Marion County, Indiana. 
The Castleberrys make no further arguments in their opening
brief regarding the use of the term "jurisdiction."  See
generally Ex parte International Paper Co., [Ms. 1180144,
March 1, 2019] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. 2019) (enforcing a
forum-selection clause providing that "'[t]he Courts of
Tennessee shall have ... exclusive jurisdiction over any
disputes arising out of or relating to this agreement'"
(quoting waste-services agreement)); Ex parte Textron, Inc.,
67 So. 3d 61, 63 (Ala. 2011) (enforcing a forum-selection
clause providing that a party "consent[ed] to the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Courts [in Rhode Island]").  We also note
that, although the Castleberrys point out that the forum-
selection 
clause 
is 
titled 
"governing 
law" 
and 
not
"forum/venue 
selection," 
counsel 
for 
the 
Castleberrys 
conceded
during the hearing on Angie's List's motion to dismiss that
"the title of [the clause] isn't determinative" of its
meaning.
6
1180241
Ex parte CTB, Inc., 782 So. 2d 188 (Ala. 2000), upon
which the Castleberrys rely, is distinguishable.  In that
case, this Court determined that a contractual provision with
language that was similar, but not identical, to the language
at issue in the present case was not an outbound forum-
selection clause.  The provision in CTB stated:
"'Governing Law. This Contract will be
construed and enforced under the laws of
the State of Indiana (but not giving effect
to any conflict of laws provisions), and
[the plaintiff] consents to jurisdiction
and venue in the Federal and State Courts
located in Indiana.'"
782 So. 2d at 190.  The Court in CTB determined that, although
the clause demonstrated consent by the plaintiff to personal
jurisdiction in the courts of Indiana, "nothing in the clause
require[d] that any action involving these parties be filed in
Indiana."  Id. at 191.  The forum-selection clause in the
present case, however, does more than simply demonstrate a
consent by the Castleberrys to personal jurisdiction of 
courts
in Indiana.  It provides that the Castleberrys agree to the
"exclusive" jurisdiction of those courts.  Thus, we disagree
7
1180241
with the Castleberrys that the reasoning employed in CTB
applies equally to the forum-selection clause in this case. 2
The Castleberrys next argue that, even if the trial court
correctly construed the forum-selection clause, it should not
be enforced against the Castleberrys.  This Court has said:
"[A]n 'outbound' forum-selection clause is upheld
unless the party challenging the clause clearly
establishes that it would be unfair or unreasonable
under the circumstances to hold the parties to their
bargain. 
[Professional 
Insurance 
Corp. 
v.
Sutherland], 700 So. 2d [347,] 351 [(Ala. 1997)].
The party challenging the clause can meet its burden
by clearly establishing either '(1) that enforcement
of the forum selection clause would be unfair on the
basis that the contract was affected by fraud, undue
influence, or overweening bargaining power or (2)
that enforcement would be unreasonable on the basis
that the chosen ... forum would be seriously
inconvenient for the trial of the action.' 700 So.
2d at 352. 'Because "[i]t is a difficult burden to
defeat a forum selection clause[,]" Smith v.
Professional Claims, Inc., 19 F. Supp. 2d 1276, 1282
(M.D. Ala. 1998), such clauses will usually be
2The Castleberrys state that they do not contend that the
clause at issue is ambiguous.  Nevertheless, they assert that,
if the clause is ambiguous, it must be construed against its
drafter, Angie's List.  The Court is not of the opinion that
the clause is ambiguous.  In any event, we note that the
Castleberrys did not make this argument to the trial court
until they filed a motion to reconsider the trial court's
order granting Angie's List's motion to dismiss.  The
Castleberrys have not convincingly argued that this Court
should consider holding the trial court in error based on a
legal argument that was not presented to it until after it had
entered the order under review.
8
1180241
enforced.' Ex parte CTB, Inc., 782 So. 2d 188, 191
(Ala. 2000)."
Ex parte International Paper Co., 263 So. 3d 1035, 1040-41
(Ala. 2018).  We review the trial court's holding regarding
this issue to determine if it exceeded its discretion.  Ex
parte D.M. White Constr. Co., 806 So. 2d 370, 372 (Ala.
2001).3
The Castleberrys argue that the forum-selection clause
should not be enforced because of Angie's List's alleged
overweening bargaining power. 
 
The 
Castleberrys' 
opening 
brief
3To the extent the Castleberrys invite this Court to 
overrule precedent and hold that a de novo standard of review
applies to the trial court's determination that equitable
considerations do not weigh against enforcement of the forum-
selection clause, we decline that invitation.  As for the
separate issue of interpreting the language of the forum-
selection clause, discussed earlier in this opinion, the
Castleberrys 
assert 
that 
such 
an 
issue 
of 
contract
interpretation is one of law and that the trial court's
decision should therefore be reviewed de novo.  See generally
McDonald v. U.S. Die Casting & Dev. Co., 585 So. 2d 853, 855
(Ala. 1991) ("If the terms within a contract are plain and
unambiguous, the construction of the contract and its legal
effect become questions of law for the court ...."); Alabama
Republican Party v. McGinley, 893 So. 2d 337, 342 (Ala. 2004)
("Questions of law are reviewed de novo.").  It is not
necessary for the Court to expressly resolve this issue,
because the Castleberrys have not demonstrated that the trial
court erred to reversal, even under de novo review, in
interpreting the clause as allowing Angie's List to require
its members to litigate claims against Angie's List in Marion
County, Indiana.
9
1180241
to this Court, however, does not support with citations to the
record the facts underlying this argument so as to show with
requisite specificity the examples of allegedly domineering
bargaining power on the part of Angie's List.  See Rule
28(a)(7) and (10), Ala. R. App. P.  In any event, even if this
Court were to accept the Castleberrys' averments as true,
those averments do not demonstrate that the trial court erred
to reversal in declining to find that the forum-selection
clause was the result of overweening bargaining power.  See Ex
parte International Paper Co., [Ms. 1180144, March 1, 2019]
___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. 2019) ("[E]ven when a party to a
forum-selection clause is a large company, there are
allegations that one of the parties was not allowed to
negotiate any of the terms of the contract, and the contract
had to be accepted as written, those factors alone do not
establish 'overweening bargaining power.'").
The Castleberrys also argue that trying their claims in
Marion County, Indiana, would be seriously inconvenient.
"In order to demonstrate that the chosen forum is
seriously inconvenient, the party challenging the
clause must show that a trial in that forum would be
so gravely difficult and inconvenient that the
challenging party would effectively be deprived of
10
1180241
his day in court. Ex parte Northern Capital Res.
Corp., 751 So. 2d [12] at 15 [(Ala. 1999)].
"'When an agreement includes a clearly
stated forum-selection clause, a party
claiming that clause is unreasonable and
therefore invalid will be required to make
a clear showing of unreasonableness. In
determining whether such a clause is
unreasonable, 
a 
court 
should 
consider 
these
five factors: (1) Are the parties business
entities or businesspersons? (2) What is
the subject matter of the contract? (3)
Does the chosen forum have any inherent
advantages? (4) Should the parties have
been able to understand the agreement as it
was written? (5) Have extraordinary facts
arisen since the agreement was entered that
would make the chosen forum seriously
inconvenient? We state these items not as
requirements, but merely as factors that,
considered 
together, 
should 
in 
a 
particular
case give a clear indication whether the
chosen forum is reasonable.'
"Ex parte Northern Capital Res. Corp., 751 So. 2d at
14."
Ex parte Rymer, 860 So. 2d 339, 342–43 (Ala. 2003).
The parties agree that the primary purpose of the Angie's
List membership agreement is to facilitate the obtaining of
search results and reviews relating to local service
providers.  Although it is reasonably clear that the
Castleberrys did not enter into the agreement in their
capacities 
as 
businesspersons, 
the 
Court 
is 
without
11
1180241
information regarding the Castleberrys' business experience
generally or their level of sophistication. Thus, the
Castleberrys have failed to demonstrate that their lack of
business acumen weighs against enforcing the forum-selection
clause. 
The Castleberrys state in their brief that "[t]he chosen
forum of Indiana has no inherent advantages in this case, as
all witnesses necessary for the trial of this matter--except
perhaps a single corporate representative of Angie's List--
would be in or around Montgomery County, Alabama."  They do
not, however, provide any significant discussion, or point to
any portion of the record, in support of this factual
assertion.4  In the relevant portion of their brief, the
Castleberrys do not expressly address the final two factors--
whether they should have been able to understand the
agreement, which the Court views as unambiguous,5 and whether
extraordinary facts have arisen since the agreement was
4The Court notes that Angie's List's principal place of
business is in Indiana.  
5The Court has not been directed to any evidence
indicating that, when the Castleberrys entered into the
membership agreement, 
they 
read 
the 
forum-selection clause 
and
formed an understanding as to its meaning.  
12
1180241
entered 
that 
would 
make 
the 
chosen 
forum 
seriously
inconvenient.  This Court is not convinced that, based on the
factors restated in Rymer, the trial court exceeded its
discretion in determining that litigation in Marion County,
Indiana, would not be "so gravely difficult and inconvenient
that the [Castleberrys] would effectively be deprived of
[their] day in court."  Rymer, 860 So. 2d at 342.
Finally, the Castleberrys argue that the trial 
court erred
in enforcing the forum-selection clause because, they assert,
doing so requires them "to litigate some of their claims in
one forum and other claims in a separate forum."  In support
of that argument, the Castleberrys point to Ex parte Leasecomm
Corp., 886 So. 2d 58 (Ala. 2003), although they do not provide
significant discussion of the facts of that case.  In
Leasecomm, the plaintiff, on behalf of a purported class, sued
three entities based on their alleged involvement in a joint
scheme to defraud the class members.  Specifically, the
plaintiff alleged that the defendants had engaged in a scheme
to trick the class members into signing "worthless" leases of
computer equipment, under the guise of paying tuition for
Internet-business training, and to provide one of the
13
1180241
defendants with access to the members' bank accounts so it
could make improper deductions for lease payments.  This Court
described the alleged scheme as "a single transaction."  886
So. 2d at 65.  One of the defendants moved the trial court to
dismiss the claims against it pursuant to a forum-selection
clause requiring litigation to proceed in Utah, and the other
defendants moved for dismissal of the claims against them
based on a forum-selection clause requiring litigation to
proceed in Massachusetts.   The trial court refused to enforce
the forum-selection clauses.  On appeal, this Court pointed to
persuasive precedent from the Minnesota Court of Appeals, in
which that court refused to enforce a forum-selection clause
that would have split the plaintiff's "intertwined" claims
against multiple defendants and would have "'result[ed] in 
two
lawsuits involving the same or similar issues creating serious
inconvenience.'" 886 So. 2d at 64 (quoting Personlized
Marketing Serv., Inc. v. Stotler & Co., 447 N.W.2d 447, 452
(Minn. Ct. App. 1989) (emphasis omitted)).  The Court in
Leasecomm determined that the plaintiff's claims against the
separate defendants in that case, like the claims in Stotler,
were "inextricably intertwined" and that "enforcement of the
14
1180241
forum-selection clauses ... would split the claims and 
require
litigation of the intertwined issues in forums far removed,
not only from Alabama, in which the cause of action arose, but
from each other."  886 So. 2d at 65 (emphasis omitted).  Thus,
the trial court did not exceed its discretion in denying the
defendants' motions to dismiss.
In the instant case, the Castleberrys simply point out in
the argument section of their brief that, in addition to suing
Angie's List, they also sued Dream Baths.  They assert that
"[t]his action pertains not only to the agreement between the
Castleberrys and Angie's List, but to improper work performed
upon a home located in Montgomery County, Alabama by defendant
Dream Baths."6  The Castleberrys provide no significant
discussion of the specific claims against Dream Baths and
Angie's List.  We note that, in other portions of their brief,
the Castleberrys allege that Dream Baths was not properly
licensed, that it failed to follow applicable building-code
provisions, that it did not obtain the required permits, that
6The Castleberrys also assert, without further discussion
or explanation, that an Indiana court's alleged lack of
subpoena power over Alabama witnesses will "potentially
limit[] the Castleberrys' ability to prove their case against
Angie's List."
15
1180241
it used incorrect materials and unqualified laborers, that it
damaged Jessie Castleberry's house, and that it did not
complete the job.  As for Angie's List, the Castleberrys
allege in their brief that Angie's List misrepresented that
Dream Baths was licensed and insured while Angie's List was
simultaneously "investigating issues related to Dream Baths'
licensing status."  They also assert in their brief that other
Angie's List members had, at some point, complained to Angie's
List regarding Dream Baths.  Finally, they allege that Angie's
List awarded Dream Baths "super service awards," although the
only detail revealed regarding such awards is that a service
provider must be properly licensed to receive them.  The
Castleberrys have not demonstrated that this case involves the
sort of "inextricable intertwining" that was involved in
Leasecomm.  To the contrary, it appears that the Castleberrys'
claims against Angie's List and Dream Baths are based on
different categories of wrongdoing that are only tangentially
related.  The trial court did not err in enforcing the
forum-selection clause simply because the Castleberrys also
sued Dream Baths.  The trial court's order is due to be
affirmed.
16
1180241
AFFIRMED.
Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Wise, and Stewart, JJ., concur.
17