Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_19-cv-00352/USCOURTS-alnd-2_19-cv-00352-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

STEVE DAILEY, individually and 

d/b/a Z DUST GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAN BERKOWITZ, individually and 

d/b/a DMC ENERGY, LLC,

1

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:19-cv-352-GMB

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to the jurisdiction 

of a United States Magistrate Judge. Pending before the court are Defendant Jan 

Berkowitz’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue (Doc. 15), Plaintiff Steve 

Dailey’s Request for Transfer (Doc. 16 at 3), and Berkowitz’s Motion to Dismiss for 

Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Doc. 36. After careful consideration of the 

parties’ filings and the relevant law, and for the reasons stated below, the court 

concludes that the motions to dismiss (Docs. 15 & 36) are due to be denied, but that 

 1 In the caption of his third amended complaint, Dailey includes “fictious Defendants X, Y, and 

Z.” Doc. 35 at 1. Generally, fictious party pleading is not permitted in federal court. Richardson 

v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 738 (11th Cir. 2010). Dailey has not demonstrated that any exceptions 

to the general rule apply. See id. (“We have created a limited exception to this rule when the 

plaintiff’s description of the defendant is so specific as to be at the very worst, surplusage.”) 

(internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, this court does not recognize the 

fictious defendants. See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1331 n.4 

(11th Cir. 2015).

FILED

 2020 Jan-09 PM 12:19

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:19-cv-00352-GMB Document 38 Filed 01/09/20 Page 1 of 9
2

the motion to transfer (Doc. 16) is due to be granted and the action transferred to the 

Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division.

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this lawsuit 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332,

2 but the parties dispute whether venue is proper in the 

Northern District of Alabama or the Middle District of Florida.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The facts are as alleged in the complaint. Dailey filed suit against 

Berkowitz—who does business as DMC Energy, LLC (“DMC”)—asserting claims 

for breach of contract, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud. Doc. 35. 

Dailey does business as Z Dust Group, Inc. (“Z Dust”). Doc. 35 at 1. Both Z Dust 

and DMC are in the business of reselling coal. See generally Doc. 35. 

In August 2017, Dailey agreed to purchase Anthracite coal from Berkowitz. 

Doc. 35 at 2. Dailey sent a deposit of $1,000,000 to Berkowitz. Doc. 35 at 2. As a 

condition of the agreement, Berkowitz was required to have the Anthracite coal 

 2 Dailey has sufficiently invoked this court’s diversity jurisdiction. The operative complaint 

alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Doc. 35 at 1. In that complaint, Dailey 

names two parties—himself, doing business as Z Dust Group, Inc.; and Berkowitz, doing business 

as DMC Energy, LLC. Doc. 35. Dailey asserts that he is a citizen of Alabama and that Berkowitz 

is a citizen of North Carolina. Doc. 33 at 1. Berkowitz moves to dismiss the action because Dailey 

has insufficiently alleged the citizenship of DMC Energy, LLC. Doc. 36. While this is true, this 

failure does not affect diversity jurisdiction because the allegations of the third amended complaint 

make clear that Berkowitz is the proper defendant for jurisdictional purposes—even if he is doing 

business as DMC Energy, LLC. Doc. 35.

Case 2:19-cv-00352-GMB Document 38 Filed 01/09/20 Page 2 of 9
3

tested in Egypt. Doc. 35 at 2. Berkowitz represented that the sample tested well, but 

that he could not meet the negotiated price. Doc. 35 at 2. In response, Dailey asked 

for a lab visit for testing the coal and a site visit to the mine. Doc. 35 at 2. When 

Dailey arrived in Atlanta, Georgia for the lab visit, he discovered that the lab was 

inadequate for its intended purpose. Doc. 35 at 3. Berkowitz did not show up for the 

lab visit and he refused to allow a site visit. Doc. 35 at 2. 

Berkowitz then offered to sell coal to Dailey from mines in Pennsylvania and 

the surrounding areas. Doc. 35 at 3. Dailey visited the mine sites in Pennsylvania 

and learned that Berkowitz was attempting to be paid for property he did not own or 

control. Doc. 35 at 3.

The parties met in Baltimore, Maryland in October 2017. Doc. 35 at 3. During 

the meeting, Berkowitz agreed that he would acquire $1,000,000 worth of steam coal 

from a company called E & I Holdings. Doc. 35 at 3. Dailey could then provide the 

coal to a Berkowitz customer in Egypt. Doc. 35 at 3. A problem arose in the 

transportation of the steam coal, during which Berkowitz falsified an email from 

Norfolk Southern Rail and forced the cancellation of the shipment. Doc. 35 at 3. 

E & I Holdings then returned $1,300,000 to Berkowitz that was intended to be repaid 

to Dailey, but Berkowitz never returned any money to Dailey. Doc. 35 at 3. On May 

16, 2018, the parties signed a termination agreement ending their original contract 

for the sale of Anthracite coal. Doc. 35 at 3. 

Case 2:19-cv-00352-GMB Document 38 Filed 01/09/20 Page 3 of 9
4

Pursuant to the termination agreement, Berkowitz was to refund $1,300,000 

to Dailey. Doc. 5 at 20. The agreement included the following choice of law and 

forum selection clause:

This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the 

State of Florida. Further, the parties irrevocably agree that venue for 

the resolution of any dispute arising out of this Agreement shall be the 

state or federal courts located in Orange County, Florida. The parties 

further agree and forever waive any objection to the venue and the 

jurisdiction of the state and federal courts located in Orange County, 

Florida.

Doc. 5 at 21. Despite this provision, Dailey filed this action in the Northern District 

of Alabama. Doc. 1. In light of the forum selection clause, Berkowitz moves to 

dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3). Doc. 15. In the alternative, Berkowitz

seeks leave to file a motion to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Doc. 19 at 

1. In his response, Dailey requests that the court either deny the motion to dismiss

or transfer the matter to the federal court located in Orange County, Florida. Doc. 16 

at 3. The court construed this request as a motion to transfer this action to the Middle 

District of Florida, Orland Division, the federal district and division encompassing 

Orange County. Doc. 30. Berkowitz does not oppose a transfer. Doc. 31 at 1.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A forum selection cannot be enforced by a motion to dismiss under Rule 

12(b)(3). Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S.D.C. for W.D. Tex., 571 U.S. 49, 52 (2013); 

see also Hisey v. Qualtek USA, LLC, 753 F. App’x 698, 793 (11th Cir. 2018) (“If a 

Case 2:19-cv-00352-GMB Document 38 Filed 01/09/20 Page 4 of 9
5

suit has been filed in a forum that satisfies the federal venue requirements . . . a party 

may not enforce a forum selection clause by seeking dismissal under either § 1406(a) 

or Rule 12(b)(3).”). “Instead, a forum-selection clause may be enforced by a motion 

to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).” Atl. Marine Const. Co., 571 U.S. at 52. 

“When a [party] files such a motion . . . a district court should transfer the case unless 

extraordinary circumstances unrelated to the convenience of the parties clearly 

disfavor a transfer.” Id. 

IV. DISCUSSION

Forum selection clauses are enforceable in federal court. P & S Bus. 

Machines, Inc. v. Canon USA, Inc., 331 F.3d 804, 807 (11th Cir. 2003) (internal 

citation omitted). “Questions of venue in diversity actions are governed by federal 

law.” Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 25 (1998). “Consideration of 

whether to enforce a forum selection clause in a diversity jurisdiction case is 

governed . . . under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), not state law.” Canon USA, Inc., 331 F.3d 

at 807. “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, section 1404(a) allows the 

district courts to transfer an action to another proper venue if such a transfer will be 

in the interest of justice.” In re Ricoh Corp., 807 F.2d 570, 572 (11th Cir. 1989).

“The validity of a forum selection clause is determined under the usual rules 

governing the enforcement of contracts in general.” Canon USA, Inc., 331 F.3d at 

807 (citing In re Ricoh Corp., 870 F.2d at 573–74, and considering whether the 

Case 2:19-cv-00352-GMB Document 38 Filed 01/09/20 Page 5 of 9
6

clause was “freely and fairly negotiated by experienced business professionals” and 

whether there was any fraud, duress, misrepresentation, or other misconduct in 

connection with the agreement to the forum selection clause). “Accordingly, the 

validity of a forum-selection clause must first be determined under general contract 

law, and, second, where a contractually valid forum-selection clause exists, the 

extremely high bar of Atlantic Marine applies to the question of whether that clause 

is enforceable.” Guest Assocs., Inc. v. Cyclone Aviation Prod., Ltd., 30 F. Supp. 3d 

1278, 1282 (N.D. Ala. 2014).

“[A]s the party defying the forum-selection clause, the plaintiff bears the 

burden of establishing that transfer to the forum for which the parties bargained is

unwarranted.” Atl. Marine Const. Co., 571 U.S. at 63. “[W]hen weighing whether 

transfer is justified under section 1404(a), a choice of forum clause is ‘a significant 

factor that figures centrally in the District Court’s calculus.’” In re Ricoh Corp., 807 

F.2d at 573 (citing Stewart Org., Inc., 487 U.S. at 29). A court evaluating a motion 

to transfer pursuant to a forum-selection clause should afford no weight to the 

plaintiff’s selected forum or the parties’ private interests. Hisey, 753 F. App’x at 703. 

“When parties agree to a forum-selection clause, they waive the right to challenge 

the preselected forum as inconvenient or less convenient for themselves or their 

witnesses, or for their pursuit of the litigation.” Atl. Marine Const. Co., 571 U.S. at 

64. Rather, “a district court may consider arguments about public-interest factors 

Case 2:19-cv-00352-GMB Document 38 Filed 01/09/20 Page 6 of 9
7

only.” Id. These factors include “the administrative difficulties flowing from court 

congestion; the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home; and 

the interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the 

law.” Guest Assocs., Inc., 30 F.Supp.3d at 1283.

“[A] forum-selection clause [should] be given controlling weight in all but the 

most exceptional cases,” Atl. Marine Const. Co., 572 U.S. at 59–60, because “the 

interest of justice is served by holding parties to their bargain.” Guess Assocs., Inc., 

30 F. Supp. 3d at 1283 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “By 

enforcing the contractual forum, the Court is not attempting to limit the plaintiff’s 

usual right to choose its forum, but is enforcing the forum that the plaintiff has 

already chosen.” Canon USA, Inc., 331 F.3d at 807.

A. Validity of the Forum Selection Clause

The parties have not argued that the forum selection clause is invalid. There 

is no evidence before the court indicating that the clause was procured by fraud, 

duress, or the like, and no party has asserted that the bargain was not freely and fairly 

negotiated. As a result, the court finds that the clause is valid and enforceable. See

Canon USA, Inc., 331 F.3d at 807.

B. Motion to Dismiss

In light of the forum selection clause, Berkowitz requests that the court 

dismiss this case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3). Doc. 15. But a party may not enforce a 

Case 2:19-cv-00352-GMB Document 38 Filed 01/09/20 Page 7 of 9
8

forum selection clause through a motion to dismiss. Atl. Marine Const. Co., 571 U.S. 

at 52 (“We reject petitioner’s argument that such a clause may be enforced by a 

motion to dismiss.”). Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is due to be denied.

C. Enforcement of the Forum Selection Clause

The forum selection clause should be enforced. Dailey initially requested that 

this court retain jurisdiction over his case. Doc. 16. As to the factors relevant to the 

§ 1404(a) analysis, Dailey’s only argument justifying litigation in the Northern 

District of Alabama is as follows:

In addition, via investigation, the Plaintiffs have identified further 

parties which have engaged in fraudulent business practices which 

relate to the bad acts of the Defendants named herein, and the Plaintiffs 

plan to seek leave of court to amend the complaints as filed, to include 

multiple defendants which have not signed and/or consented to the 

Florida courts. Neither of the parties to this action are Florida entities 

and none of the prospective party defendants are Florida entities.

Doc. 16 at 2. The vague and uncertain prospect that other parties may be added to 

this action does not warrant retention of the case in the Northern District of Alabama. 

Though Dailey contends that these potential parties have not consented to the 

jurisdiction of the Florida court, he does not explain how these potential parties will 

be inconvenienced by litigating this case in Florida—if they are even added at all.

Additionally, whether any party is a Florida entity is no reason to disturb the forum 

selection clause since the instant parties’ residences were known when they entered 

into the agreement. See Atl. Marine Const. Co., 571 U.S. at 64. 

Case 2:19-cv-00352-GMB Document 38 Filed 01/09/20 Page 8 of 9
9

Dailey advances no concrete argument regarding the public-interest factors

that a court must consider when determining whether to enforce a forum selection 

clause. See U.S. ex rel. MDI Servs., LLC v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2014 WL 1576975, at *2 

(N.D. Ala. Apr. 17, 2014) (explaining that “a valid forum-selection clause alters the 

court’s § 1404(a) analysis” by “effectively limiting the court’s consideration to 

arguments about public-interest factors”). Based upon its independent review, the 

court finds no reason to believe that the public interest will be harmed by 

administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion or having controversy 

decided in the Middle District of Florida. See Guest Assocs., Inc., 30 F. Supp. 3d at 

1283. The interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home 

with the law weighs in favor of transfer since the parties have entered into a choice 

of law provision requiring the courts to apply Florida law. See id. Ultimately, Dailey 

has failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that transfer to the Middle District of 

Florida—for which the parties bargained—is unwarranted. In accordance with the 

forum selection clause, the case will be transferred.

DONE and ORDERED on January 9, 2020.

 _________________________________

 GRAY M. BORDEN

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-00352-GMB Document 38 Filed 01/09/20 Page 9 of 9