Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02564/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02564-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUSTIN SIGNH and RANJIT SINGH, )

) 2:05-cv-2564-GEB-KJM

Plaintiffs, )

) ORDER*

v. )

)

ARROW TRUCK SALES, INC., a )

corporation, form unknown; )

NATIONAL TRUCK PROTECTION CO., )

INC., a corporation, form unknown; )

and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Defendant National Truck Protection Co., Inc. (“NTP”) moves

to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims against it based on the

contention that venue is improper under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(3). Plaintiffs oppose the motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are citizens and residents of Maryland. In 

April 2005, Plaintiffs bought a 2000 Volvo, model VNL660 truck (the

“truck”) from Defendant Arrow Truck Sales, Inc. (“Arrow”), a used

truck dealer located in California. On May 18, 2005, Plaintiffs

Case 2:05-cv-02564-GEB -KJM Document 19 Filed 03/15/06 Page 1 of 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

2

entered into a service agreement (the “Agreement”) with NTP, a New

Jersey corporation, under which NTP agreed to pay for certain repairs

to the truck. The Agreement contained the following clause:

XV. Consent to Jurisdiction and Venue

You and NTP agree that any legal or equitable action for

claims, debts or obligations arising out of or to enforce

the terms of this plan shall be brought in the United States

District Court for the District of NJ or in the Superior

Court of NJ, Bergen County, NJ; and that either Court shall

have in personam jurisdiction over You and Us and the venue

of the action shall be appropriate in each court.

In August of 2005, the truck malfunctioned. Plaintiffs

informed NTP of the malfunction and NTP directed Plaintiffs to bring

the truck to a repair facility in Virginia. At the repair facility

the source of the malfunction was identified. After being informed of

the source of the truck’s malfunction, NTP refused to pay for the

necessary repairs, based on the position that the repairs were not

covered under the Agreement. Plaintiffs then had the truck repaired

at their own expense. Subsequently, Plaintiffs brought the instant

lawsuit in which it asserts claims against NTP for breach of contract

and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

DISCUSSION

NTP argues that Plaintiffs’ claims against it must be

dismissed because the forum selection clause in the Agreement

establishes the District of New Jersey as the exclusive forum for

Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs do not contest the application of the

forum selection clause to their claims or NTP’s construction of the

forum selection clause. Rather, Plaintiffs argue that the forum

selection clause is unreasonable and should not be enforced because:

(1) they entered into the Agreement “without actually understanding

the effect of [the forum selection clause]” and (2) enforcement of the

Case 2:05-cv-02564-GEB -KJM Document 19 Filed 03/15/06 Page 2 of 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

3

forum selection clause would cause them “extreme hardship.” (Pls.’

Opp’n at 6-7.) 

“[F]orum 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.” 

Argueta v. Banco Mexicano, S.A., 87 F.3d 320, 325 (9th Cir. 1996)

(quotation marks and citations omitted). The party challenging the

forum selection clause has “the heavy burden of showing that trial in

the chosen forum would be so difficult and inconvenient that the party

would effectively be denied a meaningful day in court.” Id.

(quotation marks and citations omitted). If the party challenging the

forum selection clause “fails to come forward with anything beyond

general and conclusory allegations of fraud and inconvenience, the

court must uphold the agreement.” Sarmiento v. BMG Entm’t, 326 F.

Supp. 2d 1108, 1111 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (citing Spradlin v. Lear Siegler

Mgmt. Serv. Co., Inc. 926 F.2d 865, 868 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

Plaintiffs argue the forum selection clause is unreasonable

because Plaintiffs did not understand the effect of the forum

selection clause since they “have a very limited understanding of the

English language and [ ] legal terminology” and “are minority truck

owners who were coerced” by a “huge organization.” (Pls. Opp’n at 6-

7.) This argument is not supported with any evidence. Such “general

and conclusory allegations” do not show that enforcing the forum

selection clause would be unreasonable. Sarmiento, 326 F. Supp. 2d at

1112 (party’s broad, conclusory allegations of undue influence and

inability to understand the agreement were insufficient to find

enforcement of forum selection was unreasonable). 

Case 2:05-cv-02564-GEB -KJM Document 19 Filed 03/15/06 Page 3 of 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

4

Plaintiffs also argue that the forum selection clause is

unreasonable because it would be “extensively burdensome and

unconscionable to require [them] to bring two lawsuits[--]one in New

Jersey [against NTP] and another in California [against Arrow]” and it

would be an “extreme hardship for [them] to transport the witnesses in

this case [,who live in California,] to New Jersey.” (Pls.’ Opp’n at

7-8.) While it may be more convenient for Plaintiffs to litigate a

single action in California, it is Plaintiffs’ burden to show that

requiring them to litigate their claims in New Jersey would be so

gravely difficult and inconvenient that they would for all practical

purposes be deprived of their day in court. Argueta, 87 F.3d at 325. 

Plaintiffs’ “general and conclusory allegations” of hardship and

inconvenience are insufficient to make that showing. Sarmiento, 326

F. Supp. 2d at 1112. 

CONCLUSION

Since Plaintiffs have failed to show that enforcement of the

forum selection clause in their Agreement with NTP would be

unreasonable, NTP’s motion to dismiss for improper venue is granted. 

Therefore, NTP is dismissed as a party in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:05-cv-02564-GEB -KJM Document 19 Filed 03/15/06 Page 4 of 4