Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02316/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02316-0/pdf.json

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

---

– 1 – 14-cv-2316 BAS (JLB)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KSA ELECTRONICS, INC. a 

California corporation,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-cv-2316 BAS (JLB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

TO TRANSFER VENUE

[ECF 7]

v.

M/A-COM TECHNOLOGY 

SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware 

corporation,

Defendant.

On October 1, 2014, Plaintiff KSA Electronics, Inc. brought this breach of 

contract action against Defendant M/A-Com Technology Solutions, Inc. Plaintiff is 

a California corporation that contracted with Defendant to sell microchips on 

Defendant’s behalf. Plaintiff’s action arises under this contract and California 

statute.

The parties’ contract included a forum selection clause, which required that 

any litigation arising from the contract be brought exclusively in either state or 

federal court in Massachusetts. 

Case 3:14-cv-02316-BAS-JLB Document 19 Filed 03/06/15 Page 1 of 5
– 2 – 14-cv-2316 BAS (JLB)

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

The Court, in its discretion, has decided this matter on the papers submitted and 

without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). Therefore the Court DENIES 

Plaintiff’s motion for oral argument. ECF 10.

For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion. ECF 7.

Defendant’s ex parte application to stay discovery pending ruling on the motion to 

transfer venue is TERMINATED as MOOT. ECF 16.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is an independent sales agency based in San Diego, California. 

Compl. ¶¶ 1, 5, ECF 1. Defendant is a Massachusetts company with sales offices in 

California. Id. at ¶ 3. At some point in 2010, Defendant purchased Mimix, a 

company that had previously contracted with Plaintiff for sales services. Pl.’s Opp. 

2:18–21, ECF 9. Plaintiff contends that for five months after that purchase, until 

November 2010, Plaintiff provided sales services to Defendant under the previous 

contract with Mimix. Id. at 2:18–3:7. At that point, the parties entered into the 

present Sales Representative Agreement (“SRA”). Ex. 1 to John F. Kennedy Decl., 

ECF 7-2. Kenneth Powers, Plaintiff’s president, signed the SRA on November 16, 

2010. Id. at 15. Provision 15 of the SRA requires that “[a]ny lawsuit with respect 

to or arising out of this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby shall be 

brought exclusively in a state or federal court of competent jurisdiction in the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and MTS and the Representative each hereby 

submits, unconditionally and irrevocably, to the jurisdiction of the aforesaid courts 

for the purposes of any such lawsuit.” Id. at 13–14.

Plaintiff claims the SRA resulted from Defendant’s “take it or leave it” offer. 

Plaintiff claims Defendant position was “either sign the contract, with no revisions, 

or be replaced by a direct sales force.” Kenneth Powers Decl. ¶ 5, ECF 9-1.

From 2010 until 2014, Plaintiff operated under the SRA and later-alleged 

oral agreements. Powers Decl. ¶ 8. Defendant then terminated the SRA on July 31, 

2014. Id. at ¶ 9. Thereafter, Plaintiff sued for breach of the SRA and of the alleged

Case 3:14-cv-02316-BAS-JLB Document 19 Filed 03/06/15 Page 2 of 5
– 3 – 14-cv-2316 BAS (JLB)

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

oral agreements. ECF 1.

II. DISCUSSION

A forum-selection clause in a contract “may be enforced through a motion to 

transfer under [28 U.S.C.] § 1404(a).” Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court 

for W. Dist. of Texas, — U.S. —, 134 S. Ct. 568, 579 (2013). Section 1404(a) 

reads: “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a 

district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it 

might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have 

consented.” “[P]roper application of § 1404(a) requires that a forum-selection 

clause be ‘given controlling weight in all but the most exceptional cases.’” Id. 

(quoting Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 33 (1988) 

(Kennedy, J., concurring)).

When applying a valid forum-selection clause, the Court does not apply the 

original venue’s choice of law rules and gives no deference to the plaintiff’s venue 

choice or arguments about the parties’ private interests. Atl. Marine, 134 S. Ct. at 

581–82. Instead, the court may only consider public-interest factors. Id. at 582. 

“Because those factors will rarely defeat a transfer motion, the practical result is 

that forum-selection clauses should control except in unusual cases.” Id.

Enforcing such forum-selection clauses “furthers vital interests of the justice 

system.” Stewart, 487 U.S. at 33 (Kennedy, J., concurring). Therefore “a valid 

forum-selection clause is given controlling weight in all but the most exceptional 

cases.” Id.

Forum-selection clauses are “prima facie valid and should be enforced 

unless enforcement is shown by the resisting party to be unreasonable under the 

circumstances.” The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10, 92 S. Ct. 

1907, 1913, 32 L. Ed. 2d 513 (1972) (internal quotations omitted). Under The 

Bremen, there are four separate grounds under which such a clause is 

unenforceable:

Case 3:14-cv-02316-BAS-JLB Document 19 Filed 03/06/15 Page 3 of 5
– 4 – 14-cv-2316 BAS (JLB)

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) the clause was the product of “fraud or overreaching,”

(2) “enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust,”

(3) proceedings “in the contractual forum will be so gravely difficult and 

inconvenient that [the party challenging the clause] will for all practical 

purposes be deprived of his day in court,”; or

(4) “enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which 

suit is brought, whether declared by statute or by judicial decision[.]”

Rafael Rodriguez Barril, Inc. v. Conbraco Indus., Inc., 619 F.3d 90, 93 (1st Cir. 

2010) (internal citations omitted).

Here, the forum-selection clause is enforceable, and there is no public 

interest requiring this case be heard in a court seated in California. Plaintiff asserts 

breach of contract claims in its suit; it seems clear that Plaintiff believes the 

contract was validly entered into. Plaintiff claims that this contract was presented 

as “take it or leave it,” but does not claim that at any point Plaintiff objected to the 

forum-selection clause. The clear plain language of the clause does not evince any 

fraud, deceit, or overreach. It appears on its face to be a clearly-worded agreement, 

entered into with Plaintiff’s full knowledge. Plaintiff, primarily in counsel’s 

declaration attached to its motion for oral argument, asserts that this matter may be 

dismissed because of the burden of finding local counsel in Massachusetts, among 

other costs. The Court will not consider these arguments, as instructed under 

Atlantic Marine.

Plaintiff also asserts California’s public interest in protecting its workforce. 

The Court agrees that California has stated that “independent wholesale 

representatives are a key ingredient to the California economy [and] should be 

provided unique protection from unjust enrichment.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1738.10. 

However, the Court is unaware of any arcane idiosyncrasies in the California Code 

that would prevent our sister courts in Massachusetts from properly applying 

California law.

III. CONCLUSION

Because the parties entered into an enforceable forum-selection clause, there 

Case 3:14-cv-02316-BAS-JLB Document 19 Filed 03/06/15 Page 4 of 5
– 5 – 14-cv-2316 BAS (JLB)

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

is no extraordinary public interest in litigating the matter in California, and 

Defendant has properly moved to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the 

Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to transfer venue and TRANSFERS 

VENUE to the U.S. District Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Plaintiff’s motion for oral argument on the motion is DENIED. ECF 10. 

Defendant’s ex parte application to stay discovery pending ruling on the motion to 

transfer venue is TERMINATED as MOOT. ECF 16.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2015

Case 3:14-cv-02316-BAS-JLB Document 19 Filed 03/06/15 Page 5 of 5