Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01567/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01567-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

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

Best Western International, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Mahadev Agya, LLC, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1567-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is Defendant Mahadev Agya, LLC’s Motion For

Forum Non-Conveniens, (Dkt.#13), and Plaintiff Best Western International’s Motion to

Strike, (Dkt.#21). After reviewing the record and determining oral argument unnecessary,

the Court issues the following Order. 

Plaintiff Best Western International, Inc. (“Best Western”) filed suit against Defendant

Mahadev Agya, LLC (“Mahadev Agya”) for claims of for breach of contract, trademark

infringement, violations of the Lanham Act, and related common law and statutory causes

of action. Best Western’s claims are related to allegations that Defendant has engaged in

unauthorized use of Best Western's trade name, trademarks, service marks, logos, and other

similar identification symbols in violation of Best Western’s federal and common law

trademark rights.

Case 2:09-cv-01567-MHM Document 23 Filed 02/25/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

After the Complaint was filed, Defendant Mahadev Agya moved to transfer the case

to the Western District of Michigan, arguing that this would be the most convenient and

appropriate forum for the Parties to adjudicate their dispute. Best Western responded by

pointing out that the Parties had entered into a forum selection clause, which specified that

the appropriate venue for any dispute would be in Arizona, and that Arizona state law would

provide the governing law. Best Western also requested that it be awarded attorney’s fees for

having to respond to Mahadev Agya’s, which Best Western contended lacked merit. In its

reply brief, Mahadev Agya did not contest the existence of a forum selection clause, and

instead reargued why a transfer to the Western District of Michigan would meet the

requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

“[T]he effect of enforcing a forum selection clause is similar to that of granting a Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)” for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Murphy v. Schneider Nat'l,

Inc., 362 F.3d 1133 , 1139 (9th Cir. 2003). When a motion to dismiss is based on a lack of

subject matter jurisdiction, the “court has wide discretion to allow affidavits, other

documents, and a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts . . ..”

Sizova v. National Inst. Of Standards & Tech., 282 F.3d 1320, 1324 (10th Cir. 2002). As

such, the Court may properly consider the contract that has been submitted by Plaintiff. 

In Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972), the Supreme Court held that

selection clauses are presumptively valid. See Spradlin v. Lear Siegler Mgmt. Servs. Co., 926

F.2d 865, 868 (9th Cir. 1991). Furthermore, “[a]bsent some compelling and countervailing

reason,”a forum selection clauses should be routinely enforced by the district court. See

Bremen, 407 U.S. at 12. The party challenging the clause bears a “heavy burden of proof”

and must “clearly show that enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust, or that the

clause was invalid for such reasons as fraud or over-reaching.” Id. at 15.

Here, Defendant Mahadev Agya has made no showing that the Court should refrain

from enforcing the forum selection clause requiring the Parties to litigate their disputes in an

Arizona court. In fact, in its reply brief, Defendant chose to not even address Plaintiff’s

allegations regarding the existence and applicability of a forum selection clause. As such,

Case 2:09-cv-01567-MHM Document 23 Filed 02/25/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Defendant’s Motion to Transfer will be denied. At the same time, the Court will not grant

Plaintiff’s request for an award of attorney’s fees as a sanction under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Defendant Mahadev Agya, LLC's Motion For

Forum Non-Conveniens, (Dkt.#13).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff Best Western International,

Inc.’s Motion to strike, (Dkt.#21).

DATED this 25th day of February, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01567-MHM Document 23 Filed 02/25/10 Page 3 of 3