Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03472/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03472-1/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Desert Dental Solutions, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Independent Resources Network

Corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 05-CV-3472-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Plaintiff set forth various common law and statutory claims against defendant

premised upon their contractual relationship. The parties' contract identifies the "courts of

the State of Georgia sitting in DeKalb County" as the exclusive forum "for all actions arising

out of or relating to" the contract. Motion to Dismiss, Ex. B at 4. In our Order dated March

10, 2006 (doc. 11), we concluded that the parties' contractual choice of forum was

enforceable, and accordingly we granted defendant's motion to dismiss for improper venue

(doc. 4). We have before us plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of that decision (doc. 13).

A forum selection clause is unenforceable if it is intended as a means of discouraging

prospective plaintiffs from pursuing legitimate claims, or if it forces litigants to resolve their

essentially local disputes in a remote alien forum. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499

U.S. 585, 594-95, 111 S. Ct. 1522, 1528 (1991). We concluded that plaintiff alleged neither

of these factors. Order at 3 (doc. 11).

Case 2:05-cv-03472-FJM Document 14 Filed 03/30/06 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

1

 Plaintiff surmises that the contract "was not previously fully addressed by the Court

as perhaps it had not had the opportunity to fully review the 115-page governing contract."

Motion for Reconsideration at 2. Plaintiff substantially misrepresents the nature of the

contract. The "Card Services Terms & Conditions" element is only 4 pages. Motion to

Dismiss, Ex. B. Most of the remainder is an "Electronic Payment Card Acceptance Guide,"

which is an easily readable manual. Motion to Dismiss, Ex. C. Moreover, the American

legal system is premised on the adversarial process, and it is the burden of the litigant to set

forth the arguments that support its position. It is not the court's role to peruse the parties'

contract for provisions that plaintiff might believe to be unconscionable.

2

 Plaintiff previously argued that the agreement is adhesive and the forum selection

provision is unconscionable because Dr. Abedi would not have reasonably expected a

contractual forum selection of Georgia state court. With regard to this issue, plaintiff

misconstrues this court's Order and suggests that the court is confused with regard to the

meaning of the terms "unconscionable" and "unfair." Motion for Reconsideration at 3 n.1.

We clarify for plaintiff that it is insufficient for a litigant to assert that a contractual provision

should be struck for unconscionability. The litigant must explain how it is unconscionable,

and plaintiff failed to explicitly and successfully do so.

- 2 -

Plaintiff now specifically identifies a series of contractual provisions which have the

veneer of overreaching or unconscionability.1

 Some of those provisions arise in the same

paragraph as the forum selection clause. Taking that paragraph as a whole, an argument can

be made that the forum selection clause was drafted as a means of discouraging prospective

plaintiffs from pursuing legitimate claims. However, reconsideration after judgment is an

extraordinary remedy, and shall be used sparingly to correct manifest errors of law or fact,

prevent manifest injustice, or to allow the moving party to present previously unavailable

evidence. McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff had the

opportunity to assert this argument in response to defendant's motion to dismiss, and failed

to do so,2

 and we refuse to initially consider it here.

Plaintiff also argues that because Georgia is inconvenient and otherwise unconnected

with this litigation, it is a remote alien forum. Even if that is true, it alone will not make a

forum selection clause unenforceable; the forum must be remote and the dispute must be

inherently local. See Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 499 U.S. at 594, 111 S. Ct. at 1528. These

claims, which arise out of a contract between an Arizona and a New York corporation, are

Case 2:05-cv-03472-FJM Document 14 Filed 03/30/06 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

 Nothing in this Order, nor in our previous Order, will prevent plaintiff from arguing

in subsequent litigation that the contractual provisions other than the forum selection clause

are unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.

- 3 -

not essentially local, and plaintiff does not argue that they are. Moreover, while Georgia is

undoubtedly inconvenient, plaintiff fails to show how it is any more inconvenient than New

York–a forum which plaintiff implicitly concedes is reasonable.

Plaintiff also argues that we should reconsider our Order in light of the newly

available evidence that defendant mailed plaintiff a letter demanding costs and attorney's fees

of $35,889.34 within 10 days to avoid an enforcement action of the contractual fees provision

in Georgia state court.3

 While this is undeniably a heavy-handed tactic, it is not relevant to

our consideration of the fairness of the choice of forum. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion for reconsideration

(doc. 13).

DATED this 29th day of March, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03472-FJM Document 14 Filed 03/30/06 Page 3 of 3