Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02854/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02854-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1330 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRADY MARKETING COMPANY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

KAI USA, LTD.,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-02854-RS 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS AND 

TRANSFERRING THIS MATTER TO 

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF 

OREGON

In this contract suit, defendant KAI USA, Ltd. (“KAI”) moves to dismiss plaintiff Brady 

Marketing Company, Inc.’s (“Brady”) claims on the grounds of forum non conviens, pursuant to a 

clause in the parties’ contract stating: “The parties agree that Clackamas County, in the State of 

Oregon, shall be the proper forum for any action . . . brought under this Agreement.” Although 

this clause is valid and mandatory, see Order Req. Suppl. Br. 1, it is unclear “whether [it]

identifies Clackamas County Circuit Court as the exclusive forum for any disputes, or whether the 

U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon [which encompasses all Oregon counties] is also a 

proper forum,” id. Thus, the parties were “ordered to file briefs addressing whether the 

appropriate course is to transfer this matter to the District of Oregon . . . address[ing] (1) whether 

transfer . . . is proper; and (2) whether the interests of justice favor the transfer.” Id. at 8-9.

Neither party’s supplemental brief engages sufficiently with the issue. KAI argues, falsely,

that the “forum selection clause here specifies ‘Clackamas County, Oregon as the exclusive 

Case 3:16-cv-02854-RS Document 30 Filed 09/22/16 Page 1 of 2
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND TRANSFERRING

CASE NO. 16-cv-02854-RS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

venue,” Def.’s Suppl. Br. 1 (emphasis added), which of course it does not. The clause refers only 

to forum. KAI also announces that the “interest of justice analysis is unnecessary,” id. at 2 

(internal quotation marks omitted), and cites in support of its motion a series of cases dealing with 

contract clauses specifying a judicial venue, id. at 2-5. Brady, meanwhile, reiterates its rejected 

argument that the forum-selection clause violates public policy, Pl.’s Supp. Br. 1-2; Order Req. 

Suppl. Br. 4-6, and argues the apparently undisputed point that KAI is subject to personal 

jurisdiction in California. Pl.’s Supp. Br. 2. 

Since the parties’ briefs are altogether unenlightening on the subject of whether this action 

should be dismissed for forum non conveniens or transferred to the District of Oregon pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the action shall be transferred “to avoid the necessity of plaintiff having to 

file and serve a new action.” Cf. Voicemail Club, Inc. v. Enhanced Servs. Billing, Inc., No. C 12-

02189 SI, 2012 WL 4837697, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2012) (deeming transfer pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1406(a) preferential to dismissal).

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied, and this action is hereby transferred to the United 

States District Court for the District of Oregon.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2016

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02854-RS Document 30 Filed 09/22/16 Page 2 of 2