Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00659/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00659-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Chad Ufheil, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Carrabba’s Italian Grill, LLC, a Florida 

limited liability company; and OS 

Restaurant Services, Inc., a Delaware 

corporation, 

Defendants. 

No. CV-11-0659-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 In September 2008, Plaintiff Chad Ufheil and Defendants Carrabba’s Italian Grill, 

LLC and OS Restaurant Services, Inc. entered into an employment agreement and 

addendum thereto (“the Agreement”). Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, 

Defendants agreed to employ Plaintiff as the proprietor of a Carrabba’s restaurant located 

in Mesa, Arizona for a period of not less than five years effective August 1, 2008. Doc. 1 

¶¶ 6-8. Less than two years later, Plaintiff received a letter from Defendants informing 

him that his employment and limited partnership had been terminated effective May 22, 

2010. Id. at ¶ 12. One year later, Plaintiff filed suit in this Court asserting claims for 

breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and failure to 

pay wages. Id. ¶¶ 20-29. 

 The Agreement contains the following forum selection clause: “Employee hereby 

agrees that any action brought by Employee . . . against the Employer, the Company, or 

Case 2:11-cv-00659-DGC Document 18 Filed 08/22/11 Page 1 of 6
‐ 2 ‐ 

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 

any of their affiliates, whether arising out of this Agreement or otherwise, shall be 

brought exclusively in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, 

Tampa Division, or in the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Florida.” 

Doc. 10-1 at 12, ¶ 27. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue 

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 10. The motion 

is fully briefed. Docs. 13, 17. For reasons that follow, the motion will be granted.1

I. Legal Standard. 

 A motion to enforce a forum selection clause is to be brought as a motion to 

dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3). Kukje Hwajae Ins. Co. v. M/V Hyundai 

Liberty, 408 F.3d 1250, 1254 (9th Cir. 2005). Federal law governs the validity of a 

forum selection clause. Argueta v. Banco Mexicano, S.A., 87 F.3d 320, 325 (9th 

Cir.1996). Substantively speaking, “forum 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.’” Id. (quoting M/S Bremen v. Zapata 

Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10 (1972)). In Bremen, the Supreme Court identified three 

circumstances where enforcement of a forum selection clause would be unreasonable: 

the clause was the product of fraud or overreaching, enforcement would deprive a party 

of his day in court, or enforcement would contravene a strong policy of the forum where 

the suit was brought. 407 U.S. at 12-18; see Murphy v. Schneider Nat’l, Inc., 362 F.3d 

1133, 1140 (9th Cir. 2004). 

II. Analysis. 

 Plaintiff argues that the forum selection clause should be declared invalid because 

Defendants were in a position of “overweening” bargaining power, requiring Plaintiff and 

witnesses to litigate in Florida would be inconvenient, Arizona has a strong interest in 

protecting employees, and Plaintiff would be unable to seek certain damages for unpaid 

 

1

 Defendants’ request for oral argument is denied because the issues have been fully 

briefed and oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Partridge 

v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Case 2:11-cv-00659-DGC Document 18 Filed 08/22/11 Page 2 of 6
‐ 3 ‐ 

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 

wages and attorneys’ fees in Florida. Doc. 13. 

 A. Bargaining Power. 

 Plaintiff concedes that the forum selection clause was secured through no fraud on 

the part of Defendants, but nonetheless asserts that “Carrabba’s was certainly in a 

position of ‘overweening’ bargaining power to the point where the forum selection clause 

was never a subject up for negotiation.” Doc. 13 at 4. In support of this assertion, 

Plaintiff notes that he is an individual who lives and works in Arizona, while Carrabba’s 

is a national chain which operates scores of restaurants throughout the United States. 

Doc. 13 at 4:17-19. Although the Court recognizes a disparity in bargaining power in 

this case, such disparity is not sufficient to be characterized as “overweening.” 

 In Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991), the Supreme Court 

enforced a standard-form forum selection clause in a commercial cruise line ticket despite 

a recognizable disparity in bargaining power between the Washington residents and the 

Florida-based cruise line. In finding the forum selection clause valid and enforceable, the 

Supreme Court reasoned that a company has a “special interest in limiting the fora in 

which it could potentially be subject to suit,” that “a clause establishing ex ante the forum 

for dispute resolution has the salutary effect of dispelling any confusion about where suits 

arising from the contract must be brought and defended,” and that all parties who enter 

into contracts containing forum selection clauses benefit from reduced costs. 499 U.S. at 

593-594. The Supreme Court also found no indication that the company chose Florida as 

the forum in which disputes were to be resolved as a means of discouraging cruise 

passengers from pursuing legitimate claims. Id. at 595. 

 Applying the Supreme Court’s reasoning to this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff 

has failed to establish overweening bargaining power sufficient to invalidate the forum 

selection clause. As a national chain with its principal place of business in Florida, 

Carrabba’s has a legitimate interest in limiting the fora in which it could be subject to 

suit, thus allowing it to minimize litigation expenses and conserve judicial resources. 

Case 2:11-cv-00659-DGC Document 18 Filed 08/22/11 Page 3 of 6
‐ 4 ‐ 

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 

 B. Inconvenience. 

 Plaintiff claims that if he were “required to litigate his Arizona wage contract 

rights in Florida, it will certainly be inconvenient for him and for virtually all of the 

witnesses.” Doc. 13 at 4-5. Specifically, he asserts that the Agreement was executed in 

Arizona, the restaurant that was the subject of the Agreement is located in Arizona, and 

nearly all witnesses that can attest to the manner in which Plaintiff operated the restaurant 

are in Arizona. Id. at 5. Although Plaintiff has identified inconveniences, he has not met 

the “heavy burden of showing that trial in the chosen forum would be so difficult and 

inconvenient that [he] would effectively be denied a meaningful day in court.” Argueta, 

87 F.3d at 325. 

 C. Arizona’s Public Policy and Damages. 

 Plaintiff argues that the forum selection clause should be set aside because 

Arizona has demonstrated a “strong public policy respecting employees,” as evidenced 

by A.R.S. § 23-1501 and § 23-355(A). Doc. 13 at 6. The Court finds these statutes 

insufficient to support setting aside the forum selection clause in the parties’ Agreement. 

Section 23-1501 merely provides for the nature of employment relationships, the basic 

severability requirements of those relationships, and the grounds upon which an 

employee has a claim against an employer for termination of employment. 

 Citing A.R.S. § 23-355(A), Plaintiff asserts that the Arizona legislature has 

“determined that the prompt and timely performance of employment contracts and the 

payment of wages to Arizona residents is of such importance that penalties may be 

imposed for failure of an employer to do so.” Doc. 13 at 7. Specifically, § 23-355(A) 

provides that if an employer “fails to pay wages due any employee, the employee may 

recover in a civil action against an employer or former employer an amount that is treble 

the amount of unpaid wages.” Defendants correctly assert that this treble damages 

provision has been construed by the Ninth Circuit to be available only where a “suit was 

for wages already performed.” Nieto-Santos v. Fletcher Farms, 743 F.2d 638, 642 (9th 

Case 2:11-cv-00659-DGC Document 18 Filed 08/22/11 Page 4 of 6
‐ 5 ‐ 

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 

Cir. 1984). Given that Plaintiff’s complaint appears to seek damages for work not yet 

completed, the treble damages provision is not applicable to this case and enforcement of 

the forum selection clause will not prevent Plaintiff from receiving a fair damage award. 

 Moreover, because the Agreement in this case contains a Florida choice of law 

provision (Doc. 10-1 at 12, ¶ 26), it is not clear that Plaintiff would be able to seek treble 

damages pursuant to Arizona law even if the case were litigated in this Court. By signing 

the Agreement, Plaintiff effectively waived his right to have Arizona law govern his 

claim for failure to pay wages.2

 Citing Sawyer v. Bill Me Later, Inc., No. CV 10-04461 SJO (JCGx), 2010 WL 

5289537 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2010), Plaintiff contends that because the Agreement contains 

both a forum selection clause and a choice of law provision applying Florida law, “the 

transfer of this case to Florida would contravene Arizona’s important and unique public 

policies designed to protect its citizens from either foreign or domestic employers who 

fail or refuse to pay wages.” Doc. 13 at 9. Sawyer is not binding on this Court and 

otherwise is distinguishable because it concerns public policy specific to California. 

Plaintiff has identified no analogous violation of public policy here. See Sawyer, 2010 

WL 5289537, at *6 (where a forum selection clause is bound together with a choice of 

law clause the former is unenforceable “if the two clauses work together to violate a 

strong California public policy”). 

III. Conclusion.

 Plaintiff ultimately bears the burden of showing that venue is proper in this 

District. See Kelly v. Qualitest Pharm., Inc., No. CIV-F-06-116 AWI LJO, 2006 WL 

2536627, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2006) (citing Piedmont Label Co. v. Sun Garden 

Packing Co., 598 F.2d 491, 496 (9th Cir. 1979)). The Agreement entered into by the 

parties provides that Florida courts shall be the exclusive venue for all disputes between 

 

2

 Defendants correctly note (Doc. 17 at 8) that Florida law provides a statutory basis for 

employees to recover reasonable attorney fees incurred in action for unpaid wages. See Fla. Stat. 

§ 448.08 (2010). 

Case 2:11-cv-00659-DGC Document 18 Filed 08/22/11 Page 5 of 6
‐ 6 ‐ 

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 

the parties. Doc. 10-1 at 12, ¶ 27. That provision is presumed valid and enforceable. 

Doe 1 v. AOL LLC, 552 F.3d 1077, 1083 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff has not carried his 

“heavy burden” of showing that enforcement of the provision would be unreasonable. 

Bremen, 407 U.S. at 17. The Court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss this action 

for improper venue. 

 IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue (Doc. 10) is granted. 

2. The alternative motion to transfer is denied as moot. 

3. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action. 

Dated this 22nd day of August, 2011. 

Case 2:11-cv-00659-DGC Document 18 Filed 08/22/11 Page 6 of 6