Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01092/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01092-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
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

THREE RIVERS PROVIDER

NETWORK, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

JETT INTEGRATION and JEFF OTT,

Defendant(s).

2:13-CV-1867 JCM (PAL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

ORDER

Presently before the court is a motion to dismiss or transfer filed by defendants Jett

Integration and Jeff Ott. (Doc. # 7). Plaintiff Three Rivers Provider Network, Inc. filed a response

in opposition, (doc. # 11), and defendants filed a reply, (doc. # 13). 

On January 7, 2014, Magistrate Judge Leen ordered that discovery take place in this matter,

limited to a two-hour deposition of defendant Ott regarding issues related to personal jurisdiction.

(Doc. # 21). Following this limited discovery, defendants filed an addendum to their motion, (doc.

# 28), and plaintiff filed a supplemental response, (doc. # 30).

In this action, plaintiff alleges that it contracted with defendants to provide software security,

and that defendants wrongfully used their access to plaintiff’s information to steal trade secrets.

(Doc. # 1 p. 3). Furthermore, the complaint alleges that defendants over-billed plaintiff bymore than

$1.2 million during the course of the relationship. Id.

. . .

James C. Mahan

U.S. District Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-01092-JM-KSC Document 32 Filed 04/30/14 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

In the instant motion defendants argue, inter alia, that the court should dismiss or transfer

this action based on improper venue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 28

U.S.C. section 1406(a). In support of their motion, defendants refer to a clause of the Hosting

Services Agreement between plaintiff and defendants which states, “Exclusive venue for all disputes

arising out of the Agreement shall be in the state or federal courts in San Diego County, San Diego,

and we each agree not to bring an action in any other venue.” (Doc. # 7 p. 24).

Forum selection clauses in contracts are “presumptively valid; the party seeking to avoid a

forum selection clause bears a ‘heavy burden’ to establish a ground upon which [the court] will

conclude the clause is unenforceable.” Doe 1 v. AOL LLC, 552 F.3d 1077, 1083 (9th Cir. 2009)

(citing M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off–Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 17 (1972)). A forum selection clause is

unenforceable “if enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which suit

is brought, whether declared by statute or by judicial decision.” M/S Bremen, 407 U.S. at 15. 

Plaintiff argues the forum selection clause should not be enforced because plaintiff generally

had a policy of requiring third-party vendors to “agree that any dispute arising between [plaintiff]

and the vendor will be governed by Nevada law, with both parties binding themselves under Nevada

law and to a forum adjudicating Nevada law.” (Doc. # 11 p. 2). Plaintiff also claims, without

referring to any supporting documents, that defendants “were aware that any contractual dispute

between a third party and [plaintiff] would be governed by Nevada law” and would be adjudicated

in Nevada. (Doc. # 11 p. 8).

Despite plaintiff’s claims that defendants were aware of its ‘established policy’ requiring that

claims be brought in Nevada, plaintiff brings forth no evidence to put the validity of the forum

selection clause in doubt. Plaintiff admits that the Hosting Services Agreement was signed by Todd

Breeden, who was plaintiff’s authorized agent at the time the agreement was executed. Though

plaintiff states that the forum selection clause at issue was never reviewed by its general counsel,

(doc. # 30 p. 3), plaintiff presents no documentation to indicate that any forum other than California

was ever discussed by the parties in this case. Thus, because the language of the forum selection

clause is unambiguous, and plaintiff presents no evidence of fraud or undue influence and does not

James C. Mahan

U.S. District Judge - 2 -

Case 3:14-cv-01092-JM-KSC Document 32 Filed 04/30/14 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

argue that it will face extreme difficulty in the selected forum, the court finds that the forum selection

clause is valid and enforceable.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendants’ motion to

dismiss or transfer (doc. # 7) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the interest of justice, this case be transferred to the

Southern District of California.

DATED April 30, 2014.

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

James C. Mahan

U.S. District Judge - 3 -

Case 3:14-cv-01092-JM-KSC Document 32 Filed 04/30/14 Page 3 of 3