Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00451/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00451-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441bc Removal- 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CELIA WAKEFIELD,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15cv451 JM(JMA)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

v. DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

GLOBAL FINANCIAL PRIVATE

CAPITAL, LLC; and G.F.

INVESTMENT SERVICES, LLC,

Defendants.

Defendants Global Financial PrivateCapital, LLC (“Global Financial”) and G.F.

Investment Services, LLC move to dismiss the complaint on grounds that prior related

litigation operates asresjudicata for purposes of this action. Plaintiff Celia Wakefield,

individually and as the executor of the estate of Charles T. Wakefield, deceased, and

as the Trustee of the Wakefield Family Trust Dated April 23, 1997 (“Trust”), opposes

the motion. 

1

As a threshold matter, the court notes that the parties do not dispute that a Rule

12(b)(6) motion is an appropriate procedural vehicle to address issues of claim

On June 15, 2015, the court entered an order denying Plaintiff’s motion to

1

remand and ordered the parties to show cause (“OSC”) why the court should not

compel arbitration pursuant to the parties’ contractual arbitration provision. (Ct. Dkt.

16). On June 17, 2015, the partiesresponded to the OSC by representing that they both

voluntarily and knowingly waive the right to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal

Arbitration Act. The court accepts the parties’ representations that they voluntarily

waive the right to pursue arbitration. (Ct. Dkt6. 17).

- 1 - 15cv0451

Case 3:15-cv-00451-JM-JMA Document 20 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 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

preclusion. However, neither party discusses the contractual choice of law and forum

2

selection provisions contained in the agreement between the parties. (Ct. Dkt. 1, at

p.101 ¶23). The parties agreed to apply Florida law and designated the County of 3

Sarasota, Florida as the venue for resolving any and all disputes.

The court deniesthe motion to dismiss without prejudice becauseDefendants fail

to set forth any choice of law analysis or to otherwise inform the court of the applicable

law. Federal courtslook to the law of the forum state in resolving choice of law issues. 

See Ticknor v. Choice Hotels Intern., Inc., 265 F.3d 931, 937 (9th Cir. 2001); Sparling

v. Hoffman Constr. Co., Inc., 864 F.2d 635, 641 (9th Cir. 1988). “In determining the

enforceability of. . . contractual choice-of-law provisions, California courtsshall apply

the principles set forth in the Restatement (Second of Conflict of Laws) section 187

which reflects a strong policy favoring enforcement of such provisions.” Nedlloyd

Lines B.V. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.4th 459, 464 (1992). 

Here, the parties rely exclusively on California law, but the agreement

specifically identifies that the agreement would be governed by Florida law. It is not

the role of the court to make arguments for the parties or to identify viable state law

claims, if any. As Defendants fail to analyze the choice of law and forum selection

provisions, prerequisites to addressing the merits of Defendants’ arguments, they fail

to carry their burden under Rule 12(b)(6). 

In sum, the motion to dismiss is denied with prejudice. Defendants shall file a

response to the complaint within 14 days of entry of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 8, 2015

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

See Scott v. Kuhlmann, 746 F.2d 1377, 1378 (9th Cir. 1984) (The affirmative

2

defense of res judicata may be raised in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.).

Plaintiff, in its response to the OSC, argued that enforcement of the choice of 3

law and venue contractual provisions would cause her hardship. (Ct, DKt. 19). The

court notes that these arguments are better addressed in context of a choice of law

analysis. See Restatement (Second of Conflict of Laws) section 187.

- 2 - 15cv0451

Case 3:15-cv-00451-JM-JMA Document 20 Filed 07/08/15 Page 2 of 2