Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00752/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00752-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY

COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

TUTOR-SALIBA PERINI/SLATTERY, J.V.,

a California joint venture; TUTORSALIBA CORPORATION, a California

corporation; and SLATTERY SKANSKA,

INC., a New York corporation, 

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-752 CW

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO

DISMISS

Defendants Tutor-Saliba/Slattery, J.V., (TSS), Tutor-Saliba

Corp. (TSC) and Slattery Skanska, Inc., (Slattery)

(collectively, Defendants) move to dismiss Plaintiff Travelers

Casualty and Surety Co.’s claims against them for improper

venue, lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state

a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff opposes the

motion. The matter was heard on April 22, 2005. 

Having considered the papers filed by the parties and oral

argument on the motion, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to

dismiss. 

BACKGROUND

This case involves a dispute between a general contractor

and sub-contractor arising from work done for the Bay Area Rapid

Transit (BART)’s San Francisco International Airport Extension

Case 4:05-cv-00752-CW Document 17 Filed 04/29/05 Page 1 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1Unless otherwise noted, the facts are undisputed and taken

from Plaintiff’s complaint. 

2

Project.1 This project extended BART’s rapid transit rail system

into San Mateo County, California. 

Defendant TSS is a joint venture formed by Defendants TSC

and Slattery. As general contractor, TSS was awarded three

contracts for the BART extension project (the General

Contracts). TSS, in turn, awarded three subcontracts for a

portion of the work (the Subcontracts) to Amelco Electric S.F.,

Inc., (Amelco), a California corporation with its principal

place of business in San Leandro, California. Pursuant to an

indemnity agreement, Amelco assigned Reliance Insurance Co. the

right to any cause of action arising out of the Subcontracts. 

Plaintiff, a Connecticut corporation, is the assignee of those

indemnity rights, as successor in interest by way of a corporate

merger. 

Plaintiff now brings claims against Defendants for inter

alia breach of contract. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants

failed to pay Amelco for additional work done, as required under

the Subcontracts. Multiple factors caused the need for

additional work. According to an Amelco Senior Project Manager,

“Some of the impacts were clearly the result of BART-ordered

changes and additions to Amelco’s scope of work. Others

appeared to be the responsibility of T-S/S.” Kaplan Decl. ¶ 14. 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is based on the forum

selection clause of the Subcontracts. Each Subcontract contains

Case 4:05-cv-00752-CW Document 17 Filed 04/29/05 Page 2 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2Plaintiff refers in its opposition to this sentence, “The

General Contract is incorporated into the Subcontract,” but

fails cite a specific page or paragraph number. The Court

assumes that the Subcontracts do indeed incorporate the General

Contract, but was unable to find this sentence in the portions

of the Subcontracts attached to the Complaint. 

3

the following provision,

All claims of the Subcontractor [Amelco] arising out of

acts or omissions of the Owner [BART] shall be presented to

the Owner by the Contractor [TSS] on behalf of the

Subcontractor and finally resolved through the claims

procedure, (arbitration, litigation or otherwise)

applicable between the Contractor and Owner. If the

provisions of the General Contract require Contractor to

file within specified time periods, notices, claims or

other documents with the Owner in order to receive

compensation for claims, the Subcontractor shall supply

these to the General Contractor so as to allow Contractor

to timely file them with the Owner. Subcontractor shall

pay all costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees,

related to the presentation and prosecution of such claims. 

Subcontractor’s sole remedy shall be to receive the amount

received by the Contractor from the Owner with respect to

such claim. All other claims and disputes between the

parties shall be decided by the appropriate California

State Court in the County of Los Angeles.

Complaint Exs. A, B and C at 2. The Subcontracts also

incorporate the General Contract between TSS and BART.2 The

General Contract between TSS and BART also contains a forum

selection clause, which mandates, 

The Contract, and the relationship of [the BART] District

and the Contractor arising out of or relating to the

Contract, shall be governed by and construed in accordance

with the laws of the State, without regard to conflict of

law rules. Suit to resolve any dispute arising out of or

relating to the Contract or to the relationship between

[the BART] District and the Contractor, shall be filed in

the United States District Court for the Northern District

of California, unless jurisdiction is lacking, in which

case suit shall be filed in the Superior Court of the State

of California in and for the County of Alameda. 

Kaplan Decl., Ex. A., General Contract ¶ 7.18. 

Defendants interpret the Subcontracts to bar Plaintiff’s

Case 4:05-cv-00752-CW Document 17 Filed 04/29/05 Page 3 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

complaint because its claims necessarily fall into one of two

categories: 1) those arising out of acts or omissions by BART,

i.e. “pass-through” claims, in which case the Subcontracts'

provisions mandate that the claims may only be “finally resolved

through the claims procedure” between TSS and BART; or 2) all

other claims against TSS, in which case the Subcontracts' forum

selection clause mandates filing in California State court in

the County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff contends that the

applicability of these provisions of the Subcontract involves

disputes of fact which cannot properly be resolved on a motion

to dismiss. At oral argument, Plaintiff clarified its position

that the Subcontracts allow Plaintiff to take direct advantage

of the claims procedure set forth in the General Contracts. 

In or around October, 2003, Amelco submitted pass-through

claims for payment to TSS, and TSS approved them and submitted

them to BART. Kaplan Decl. ¶ 22. Since an April, 2004 group

meeting for presentation of claims, Amelco has not participated,

or been invited to participate, in negotiations between TSS and

BART. Id. ¶ 24. Amelco still has not been paid for its

additional work. 

LEGAL STANDARD

 A motion to dismiss brought on the basis of a forum

selection clause is treated as a motion to dismiss for improper

venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). Argueta

v. Banco Mexicano, S.A., 87 F.3d 320, 324 (9th Cir. 1996). The

enforceability of a forum selection clause is determined by

federal law. Id. In consideration of a motion to dismiss based

Case 4:05-cv-00752-CW Document 17 Filed 04/29/05 Page 4 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

on a forum selection clause, the pleadings need not be accepted

as true, and a court may consider facts outside of the

pleadings. Id. However, “in the context of a Rule 12(b)(3)

motion based upon a forum selection clause, the trial court must

draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party

and resolve all factual conflicts in favor of the non-moving

party . . . .” Murphy v. Schneider Nat’l, Inc., 362 F.3d 1133,

1138 (9th Cir. 2004). When a Rule 12(b)(3) motion is made prior

to development of the factual record, 

if the facts asserted by the non-moving party are

sufficient to preclude enforcement of the forum selection

clause, the non-moving party is entitled to remain in the

forum it chose for suit unless and until the district court

has resolved any material factual issues that are in

genuine dispute.

Id. at 1139. 

To the extent that Defendants’ motion to dismiss is based

on grounds other than the forum selection clause, the Court

treats it as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). A motion to

dismiss for failure to state a claim will be denied unless it is

“clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts

that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” 

Falkowski v. Imation Corp., 309 F.3d 1123, 1132 (9th Cir. 2002),

citing Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002). A

complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 8(a). “Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise,

and direct. No technical forms of pleading or motions are

Case 4:05-cv-00752-CW Document 17 Filed 04/29/05 Page 5 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 6

required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e). These rules “do not require a

claimant to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his

claim. To the contrary, all the Rules require is ‘a short and

plain statement of the claim’ that will give the defendant fair

notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds on which

it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957).

When granting a motion to dismiss, a court is generally

required to grant a plaintiff leave to amend, even if no request

to amend the pleading was made, unless amendment would be

futile. Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv.

Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 246-47 (9th Cir. 1990). In determining

whether amendment would be futile, a court examines whether the

complaint could be amended to cure the defect requiring

dismissal “without contradicting any of the allegations of [the]

original complaint.” Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d

291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990). Leave to amend should be liberally

granted, but an amended complaint cannot allege facts

inconsistent with the challenged pleading. Id. at 296-97. 

DISCUSSION

As Defendants argue, the Subcontracts divide potential

claims into two categories: pass-through claims that arise out

of BART’s acts or omissions, and other claims that do not. The

Subcontracts clearly mandate that the latter are to be brought

in State court in Los Angeles. Plaintiff does not argue that

this forum selection provision of the Subcontracts is invalid or

that its enforcement would be unreasonable. Therefore, to the

extent that Plaintiff’s claims do not arise out of BART’s acts

Case 4:05-cv-00752-CW Document 17 Filed 04/29/05 Page 6 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 7

or omissions, the Court dismisses them pursuant to the forum

selection clause of the Subcontracts. The Court need not reach

the question of the clause’s enforceability should Plaintiff

choose to file suit in State court in Alameda County instead of

in Los Angeles. 

To the extent that Plaintiff's claims arise out of BART's

acts or omissions, the Subcontracts provide that all such passthrough claims “shall be presented to the Owner by the

Contractor [TSS] on behalf of the Subcontractor and finally

resolved through the claims procedure, (arbitration, litigation

or otherwise) applicable between the Contractor and Owner.” The

General Contract between TSS and BART specifies that such claims

shall be brought in the Northern District, or in Alameda County

Superior Court if federal jurisdiction is lacking. However, it

is clear that only TSS may bring such claims in these fora. 

Plaintiff has provided no support for its contention that

Plaintiff may itself bring pass-through claims against

Defendants or BART, a contention which is contrary to the plain

language of the Subcontracts, which specify that pass-through

claims shall be “finally resolved through the claims procedure .

. . applicable between the Contractor and Owner.” To the extent

that Plaintiff claims that Defendants have failed to pursue

Plaintiff’s pass-through claims diligently with BART, such a

claim does not arise out of an “act or omission” of BART and

therefore must be brought in State court, as described above. 

Plaintiff has provided no authority suggesting that this Court

may determine which claims are subject to the Subcontracts'

Case 4:05-cv-00752-CW Document 17 Filed 04/29/05 Page 7 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 8

forum selection provisions without having jurisdiction over the

claims themselves. As Plaintiff acknowledged at the hearing,

given the Court’s construction of the Subcontracts, amendment

would be futile. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’

motion to dismiss, without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling its

complaint in State court (Docket No. 6). Judgment shall enter

accordingly. Defendants shall recover their costs from

Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/29/05 /s/ CLAUDIA WILKEN 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00752-CW Document 17 Filed 04/29/05 Page 8 of 8