Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00627/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00627-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1 

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 

HELAINA WASHINGTON, 

individually and on behalf of others 

similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff 

v. 

CASHFORIPHONES.COM, fka 

Cashforlaptops.com, 

 Defendant. 

Civil No. 15-cv-0627-JAH (JMA)

ORDER DENYING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS OR TRANSFER FOR 

IMPROPER VENUE (Doc. # 14) 

INTRODUCTION 

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer 

for improper venue. (Doc. # 14). After careful review of the parties’ pleadings, 

and for the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

Defendant is an internet-based company that purchases used electronic 

devices from individuals. Individuals desiring to sell their used iPhones to 

Defendant input the model and condition of their iPhone on Defendant’s 

website and are instantly provided an initial quote of the amount that 

Defendant will pay for the iPhone. All individuals who wish to sell their 

iPhones to Defendant via Defendant’s website are required to click a box 

Case 3:15-cv-00627-JAH-JMA Document 27 Filed 02/26/16 Page 1 of 9
2 

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

signifying that they agree to Defendant’s Terms and Conditions (“Terms”). 

The Terms contain a mandatory forum selection and choice of law clause. 

Specifically, the clause provides: 

THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE 

GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED IN 

ACCORDANCE WITH, NEVADA LAW, AND NO 

CONFLICT OF LAWS OR PROVISIONS OF ANY 

JURISDICTION WILL APPLY TO THESE TERMS 

AND CONDITIONS. BY CHECKING THE BOX 

STATING “I AGREE TO THE TERMS AND 

CONDITIONS” AND THEREAFTER CLICKING ON 

“SELL NOW,” YOU ARE AUTHORIZING THIS 

TRANSACTION PURSUANT TO ALL SUCH 

TERMS AND CONDITIONS. CHECKING THE 

BOX "I AGREE" FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGES 

YOUR AGREEMENT THAT ANY ACTION AT LAW 

OR IN EQUITY ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING 

TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS WILL BE 

FILED ONLY IN STATE OR FEDERAL COURT 

LOCATED IN RENO, NEVADA AND YOU HEREBY 

IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY 

CONSENT AND SUBMIT TO THE EXCLUSIVE 

JURISDICTION OF SUCH COURTS OVER ANY 

SUIT, ACTION, OR PROCEEDING ARISING OUT 

OF THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 

 (Doc. # 1, Exh. A). Once a party agrees to the Terms, Defendant sends the 

party packaging with pre-paid postage in which the party can ship his iPhone 

to Defendant. Upon receiving the iPhone, Defendant may revise its initial 

quoted price and notify the party via email of any change. The party then has 

three days to contact Defendant and reject the revised price, otherwise, per 

the Terms, the party is deemed to have accepted the new offer. 

Plaintiff is woman who lives in La Mesa, California, and sold her used 

iPhone to Defendant. In January, 2015, Plaintiff received an initial quote of 

Case 3:15-cv-00627-JAH-JMA Document 27 Filed 02/26/16 Page 2 of 9
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

$88 for her used iPhone from Defendant’s website. Plaintiff then sent her 

used iPhone to Defendant. On February 2, 2015, Defendant sent Plaintiff a 

revised offer of $9 via email. That same day, Plaintiff emailed Defendant 

declining its revised offer and requesting Defendant return her iPhone. 

Plaintiff also called Defendant several times, but was either put on hold or her 

call was not answered. When Plaintiff finally spoke with someone at 

Defendant’s company, Plaintiff was informed that she could no longer reject 

Defendant’s revised offer because the three-day rejection period had expired. 

Defendant deposited $9 in Plaintiff’s PayPal account on February 6, 2015. 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

On March 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against 

Defendant alleging violations of: (i) the Consumer Legal Remedies Act 

(“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq., (ii) California Business and 

Professions Code § 17200, et seq., (iii) California Business and Professions 

Code § 17500, et seq., (iv) Cal. Civ. Code § 1573, (v) fraudulent inducement 

and representation, (vi) breach of contract, (vii) conversion, (viii) breach of 

the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (ix) fraud, (x) fraudulent 

misrepresentation, and (xi) negligent misrepresentation. (See Doc. # 1). On 

June 18, 2015, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or transfer the action for 

improper venue. (Doc. # 14). Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant’s 

motion to dismiss on August 10, 2015 (Doc. # 20), and Defendant filed a 

reply on August 17, 2015 (Doc. # 24). 

LEGAL STANDARD 

 The court applies federal law to the interpretation and enforcement of a 

forum selection clause. Manetti-Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci America, Inc., 858 F.2d 

509, 513 (9th Cir. 2009). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) permits a 

defendant to move to dismiss a complaint for improper venue. Plaintiff bears 

the burden of demonstrating venue is proper. See Piedmont Label Co. v. Sun 

Case 3:15-cv-00627-JAH-JMA Document 27 Filed 02/26/16 Page 3 of 9
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

Garden Packing Co., 598 F.2d 491, 496 (9th Cir. 1979). In considering a 

motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3), a court need not accept the pleadings 

as true and may consider facts outside the pleadings. See Argueta v. Banco 

Mexicano, S.A., 87 F.3d 320, 324 (9th Cir. 1996). Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 

1406(a) permits a district court to dismiss or transfer an action laying venue 

in the wrong district. However, a court shall not dismiss an action pursuant to 

Rule 12(b)(3) or § 1406(a) when venue is established under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 

in the forum in which the action was initiated. See Atl. Marine Constr. Co., v. 

U.S. District Court, 134 S. Ct. 568, 577 (2013). 

Venue is proper under § 1391 in: (1) a judicial district in which any 

defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state, (2) a judicial 

district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the 

claim occurred, or (3) any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to 

the court’s personal jurisdiction if there is no district in which the action may 

otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Venue may be properly 

established under § 1391 irrespective of whether the parties’ contract contains 

a forum selection clause. Atl. Marine, 134 S. Ct. at 578. 

When venue is properly established under § 1391(b), a party may 

enforce a forum selection clause through a motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1404(a). Id. at 579. Section 1404(a) states, “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.” District courts 

generally have broad discretion in deciding a motion to transfer under § 

1404(a). Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 486 F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir. 2007). 

“The calculus changes, however, when the parties’ contract contains a valid 

forum-selection clause.... [A] valid forum-selection clause should be given 

/ / / 

Case 3:15-cv-00627-JAH-JMA Document 27 Filed 02/26/16 Page 4 of 9
5 

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

controlling weight in all but the most exceptional cases.” Atl. Marine, 134 S. 

Ct. at 581 (internal quotations and alterations removed). 

 “A forum selection clause is 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) (quoting M/S Bremen v. 

Zapata Off–Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 17 (1972)). However, “a forum selection 

clause is unenforceable ‘if enforcement would contravene a strong public policy 

of the forum in which suit is brought....’ ” Doe 1, 552 F.3d at 1083 (quoting 

Bremen, 407 U.S. at 15). 

DISCUSSION 

A. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 12(b)(3) and U.S.C. § 1406(a) 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed because 

Plaintiff agreed to the Terms, which include a mandatory forum selection 

clause, the forum selection clause covers Plaintiff’s claims, Plaintiff has not 

sufficiently rebutted the presumption of enforceability that accompanies 

forum selection clauses, and public interest factors favor enforcement of the 

forum selection clause. In opposition, Plaintiff argues her complaint should 

not be dismissed because a motion to dismiss is not the proper procedural 

mechanism to enforce a forum selection clause under Atlantic Marine. 

Plaintiff further argues the contract is unenforceable because the Terms do not 

adequately identify the contracting parties insomuch as they refer to 

Defendant as “we” and “our company and its affiliates and subsidiaries” 

without naming the company or its related companies. 

As discussed above, a court may not dismiss a complaint under Rule 

12(b)(3) or § 1406(a) when venue is proper under § 1391. See Atl. Marine, 

134 S. Ct. at 577–79. Plaintiff contends that “it is undisputed this case meets 

/ / / 

Case 3:15-cv-00627-JAH-JMA Document 27 Filed 02/26/16 Page 5 of 9
6 

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 § 1393(b) [sic]1 criteria, since ‘a substantial part of the events . . . giving 

rise to the claim occurred’ in this district and the defendant corporation does 

business in this district.” (Doc. # 20, pg. 14). Plaintiff explains that she 

attempted to sell her iPhone to Defendant and accepted Defendant’s Terms 

from her home computer in La Mesa, California, which is located in the 

Southern District of California. Id. at 6. Defendant sent packaging with prepaid postage to Plaintiff’s home in the Southern District of California, so 

Plaintiff could send her iPhone to Defendant. Id. Defendant does not dispute 

that Plaintiff established venue under § 1391. Rather, Defendant asserts that 

establishing proper venue under § 1391 is insufficient to preclude the 

enforcement of the forum selection clause. (See Doc. # 14, pg. 7–8, 11). In 

regards to its motion to dismiss, Defendant is mistaken. 

The Supreme Court clearly stated in Atlantic Marine that a complaint 

shall not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) and § 1406(a) if venue is 

properly established under § 1391. 134 S. Ct. at 577–79. If venue is 

established under § 1391, the action cannot be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(3) 

or § 1406(a), but must be enforced via a motion to transfer under § 1404(a) 

if seeking a different federal forum or under the doctrine of forum non 

conveniens if seeking a state forum. Id. at 579–80. The Court finds that 

Plaintiff properly established venue in the Southern District of California 

under § 1391(b)(2) because “a substantial part of the events or omissions 

giving rise to the claim occurred” within the confines of the Southern District 

of California. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(3) and § 1406(a) is DENIED. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

 1

 Although Plaintiff cites to § 1393(b) rather than § 1391(b) while arguing that venue is proper, 

the Court construes Plaintiff’s argument under § 1391 as Plaintiff cited to § 1391 in her discussion as 

to venue and directly quoted the statutory language of § 1391(b) following her cite to § 1393(b). 

Case 3:15-cv-00627-JAH-JMA Document 27 Filed 02/26/16 Page 6 of 9
7 

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

To the extent Defendant argues for dismissal under the doctrine of forum 

non conveniens, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.2 “[T]he appropriate way to 

enforce a valid forum selection clause pointing to a state or foreign forum is 

through the doctrine of forum non conveniens.” Atlantic Marine, 134 S. Ct. 

at 580. The forum selection clause in Defendant’s Terms points to either state 

or federal courts in Nevada. However, Defendant’s argument based on forum 

non conveniens only applies to Defendant’s attempt to dismiss the action 

insomuch as the Terms’ forum selection clause points to Nevada state courts, 

which Defendant cannot do. 

When a California plaintiff files an action in California alleging 

violations of the CLRA, a court may not dismiss the action for improper venue 

based on a forum selection clause designating an alternate state forum that 

lacks the protections afforded by the CLRA. See Doe 1 v. AOL LLC, 552 F.3d 

1077, 1083–84 (9th Cir. 2009); Bayol v. Zipcar, Inc., No. 14-cv-02483-TEH, 

2014 WL 4793935, *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2014). To do so amounts to a 

waiver of the remedies provided by California’s consumer law, and any such 

waiver is void and in violation of California public policy. See Doe 1, 552 

F.3d at 1084. The application of Nevada law in this case “would effect the 

waiver of California’s unwaivable consumer remedies.” Bayol, 2014 WL 

4793935, at *4. Therefore, Defendant’s motion to dismiss for forum non 

conveniens is DENIED. 

/ / / 

 2

 Defendant’s motion to dismiss is based on Rule 12(b)(3) and § 1406(a). (See Doc. # 14, pg. 

1–2) (stating in its introductory statement that “Cashforiphones.com moves to dismiss the Complaint 

for improper venue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)” and 

requesting the Court “dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 28 

U.S.C. § 1406(a)”). However, later in its motion, Defendant asks the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s 

complaint “on the ground of improper venue/forum non conveniens.” Id. at 13. After Plaintiff correctly 

asserts in her opposition that dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) and § 1406(a) is not warranted when 

venue is established under § 1391, Defendant more aggressively argues in its reply that its motion to 

dismiss is based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens and should be granted thereon. (See Doc. # 

24, pg. 3–4). 

Case 3:15-cv-00627-JAH-JMA Document 27 Filed 02/26/16 Page 7 of 9
8 

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

B. Motion to Transfer 

Although Defendant titles its motion a Motion to Dismiss or Transfer 

for Improper Venue, Defendant’s motion only requests dismissal. (See Doc. 

# 14). Defendant argues exclusively for dismissal asserting that “the interests 

of justice do not support a transfer of the matter” and “transfer should not be 

ordered.” Id. at 14. After Plaintiff correctly asserts in her opposition that, 

under Atlantic Marine, dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) and § 1406(a) is 

not warranted when venue is established under § 1391, Defendant changes its 

position in its reply, requesting for the first time that the action be transferred 

pursuant to § 1404(a) if the Court does not grant a dismissal. (Doc. # 24, pg. 

5). In its reply, Defendant attempts to argue that its motion sought a transfer 

all along because it was titled accordingly and because Defendant cited 

Atlantic Marine, “and moved for dismissal or transfer, in line with Atlantic 

Marine’s analysis.” (Doc. # 24, pg. 4). 

The Court is not persuaded. “The district court need not consider 

arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.” Zamani v. Carnes, 491 

F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 2007). Defendant never requested a transfer pursuant 

to § 1404(a) in its motion and specifically argued against a transfer pursuant 

to § 1406. (See Doc. # 14, pg. 14). Defendant clearly raises the argument 

that the action should be transferred for the first time in its reply. Defendant’s 

pseudo-request for a dismissal for forum non conveniens does not amount to 

a request for transfer under § 1404(a). “[Section] 1404(a) transfers are 

different than dismissals on the ground of forum non conveniens.” Piper 

Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 253 (1981). Therefore, Defendant 

cannot assert that he requested a motion to transfer pursuant to § 1404(a) in 

his motion. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s request for a transfer 

without prejudice because it was not properly raised. 

/ / / 

Case 3:15-cv-00627-JAH-JMA Document 27 Filed 02/26/16 Page 8 of 9
9 

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

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds dismissal based on the 

forum selection clause is not proper as the Plaintiff has established venue 

under § 1391. Further, the Court finds that Defendant failed to properly 

request a transfer because Defendant did not present that argument until its 

reply brief. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer the action 

for improper venue is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 26, 2016 

______________________________ 

 JOHN A. HOUSTON 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-00627-JAH-JMA Document 27 Filed 02/26/16 Page 9 of 9