Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03200/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03200-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REDWOOD HILL FARM & CREAMERY, 

INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

BARRY-WEHMILLER DESIGN GROUP, 

INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-03200-JST 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

REMAND

Re: ECF No. 12

Before the Court is Plaintiff Redwood Hill Farm and Creamery, Inc.’s (“Redwood Hill”) 

Motion to Remand. ECF No. 12. The Court will grant the motion.

I. BACKGROUND 

In 2013, Redwood Hill contracted with Defendant Barry-Wehmiller Design Group, Inc. 

(“Design Group”), an engineering consulting firm, to provide services and equipment to upgrade 

Redwood Hill’s production facility located in Sonoma County, California. ECF No. 1 at 12. 

Dissatisfied with Design Group’s work, Redwood Hill sued Design Group in Sonoma County 

Superior Court for (1) breach of contract; (2) negligence; (3) breach of express and implied 

warranty; (4) fraud; (5) concealment; (6) negligent misrepresentation; and (7) unlawful business 

practices under the California Business and Professions Code section 17200. ECF No. 1 at 10.

On June 10, 2016, Design Group removed the action to this Court based on diversity 

jurisdiction. ECF No. 1 at 3. Redwood Hill filed a motion to remand on June 30, 2016, relying on 

two paragraphs in the underlying contracts, which allegedly permit litigation related to the 

contracts only in Sonoma County Superior Court.

1

 ECF No. 12. Paragraph 18(4)(a), entitled 

 

1 Design Group performed construction for Redwood Hill under two separate written contracts 

containing identical versions of the disputed provisions. ECF No. 12 at 6. 

Case 3:16-cv-03200-JST Document 27 Filed 09/09/16 Page 1 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

“Legal Action,” provides, in relevant part:

Owner and Contractor agree that jurisdiction for any legal action 

shall be the Sonoma County Superior Court for the State of 

California.

ECF No. 1 at 35. Paragraph 24, entitled “Venue and Jurisdiction,” provides:

Any legal proceeding arising from this contract shall be brought 

only in a court of competent jurisdiction in the county in which the 

construction is being performed.

Id.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

In diversity cases, federal law governs the enforceability and interpretation of forum 

selection clauses. Manetti-Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci Am., Inc., 858 F.2d 509, 513 (9th Cir. 1988) 

(citing The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972)). In interpreting a forum selection

clause, “we look for guidance to general principles for interpreting contracts.” Doe 1 v. AOL 

LLC, 552 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A] forum 

selection clause is ‘prima facie valid and should be enforced unless enforcement is shown by the 

resisting party to be unreasonable under the circumstances.’” Pelleport Investors, Inc. v. Budco 

Quality Theatres, Inc., 741 F.2d 273, 279 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting The Bremen, 407 U.S. at 10). 

“A district court may remand a case to state court to effectuate a forum selection clause.” Calisher 

& Assocs, Inc. v. RGCMC, LLC, Nos. 08-cv-06523-MMM, 08-cv-06540-MMM, 2008 WL 

4949041, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2008); see also Pelleport, 741 F.2d at 275, 281 (affirming 

district court’s remand to state court based on a forum selection clause).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Motion to Remand

The parties dispute the meaning of the forum selection clauses in paragraphs 18(4)(a) and 

24 of the underlying contracts. Redwood Hill contends that these two clauses mandate exclusive 

jurisdiction in the Sonoma County Superior Court. Design Group disagrees. First, Design Group 

argues that the relevant language in paragraph 18(4)(a) is permissive, not mandatory. ECF No. 21 

at 5–8. Second, Design Group contends that this district court meets paragraph 24’s requirement

that legal action be brought in “a court of competent jurisdiction in Sonoma County” because the 

Case 3:16-cv-03200-JST Document 27 Filed 09/09/16 Page 2 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Northern District of California encompasses Sonoma County. ECF No. 21 at 10–13. As a result, 

Design Group argues that the contracts permit litigation in state court but do not require it.

Redwood Hill has the better argument. Paragraph 24, the “Venue and Jurisdiction”

provision, states that “[a]ny legal proceeding arising from this contract shall be brought only in a 

court of competent jurisdiction in the county in which the construction is being performed.” ECF 

No. 1 at 35. The parties do not dispute that this clause is mandatory, as it provides that legal 

proceedings “shall be brought only in a court of competent jurisdiction in the county in which the 

construction is being performed.” ECF No. 13-2 at 5 (emphasis added). The parties also do not

dispute that because Design Group’s work was to be performed in Sonoma County, Paragraph 24

provides in essence that “[a]ny legal proceeding arising from this contract shall be brought only in

a court of competent jurisdiction in [Sonoma County].” ECF No. 1 at 35. Thus, the crux of the

issue is whether this Court, a federal district court located in San Francisco, California, “qualifies 

as a court of competent jurisdiction [in Sonoma County] when there is no appropriate federal 

courtroom located within the physical boundaries of Sonoma County.” ECF No. 21 at 10.

Redwood Hill argues that “a federal court is not located ‘in’ a county over which it 

exercises jurisdiction if there is no federal courthouse located in that county.” ECF No. 22 at 9. 

Redwood Hill relies on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Simonoff v. Expedia, Inc., 643 F.3d 1202 

(9th Cir. 2011) for the proposition that the physical location of a federal courthouse crucial in

determining whether a federal court is “in” a county. See id. at 1206–07 (“When a federal court 

sits in a particular county, the district court is undoubtedly ‘in’ that county” for purposes of a 

forum selection clause vesting “‘exclusive jurisdiction and venue’ in the courts ‘in’ a county.”).

However, Siminoff is not dispositive because Siminoff did not decide whether a federal district 

court physically located in one county could also be considered to be “in” another county over 

which the district court also has jurisdiction. Rather, Siminoff simply held that “a forum selection 

clause that vests ‘exclusive jurisdiction and venue’ in the courts ‘in’ a county provides venue in 

the state and federal courts located in that county.” 643 F.3d at 1207.

Nonetheless, the Court concludes that the weight of authority in this Circuit supports the 

proposition that in construing a forum selection clause, a federal district court cannot be 

Case 3:16-cv-03200-JST Document 27 Filed 09/09/16 Page 3 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

considered to be “in” a county over which the district court has jurisdiction, but in which the 

district court does not have a physical presence. See FCE Benefit Administrators, Inc. v. Training, 

Rehab., & Dev. Inst., Inc., No. 15-cv-01160-JST, 2015 WL 2173744, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 7, 

2015) (“Because the clause mandates that ‘venue . . . will be San Mateo County, California,’ and 

there is no federal courthouse in San Mateo County, the Court also concludes that the clause 

unambiguously requires that disputes under the agreement be resolved in San Mateo County 

Superior Court.”); Stone v. County of Lassen, No. 12-cv-01946-MCE, 2013 WL 269085, at *3 

(E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2013) (“A forum selection clause stating that venue ‘shall be in’ a particular 

county means that venue lies in state court when there is no federal court in that particular county

– even though that county may be part of a judicial district whose courthouse lies elsewhere.”);

Gold Canyon Mining & Const., LLC v. Robinson Nevada Mining Co., No. 11-cv-00095-LRH, 

2011 WL 6400295, at *1 (D. Nev. Dec. 20, 2011) (concluding that forum selection clause 

providing that any dispute arising under the contract “shall be decided by a court of competent 

jurisdiction in Ely, Nevada,” required adjudication in state court “because there is no federal 

courthouse located in Ely, Nevada”); Air Ion Devices, Inc. v. Air Ion, Inc., No. 02-cv-1717-SI, 

2002 WL 1482665, at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. July 5, 2002) (forum selection clause stating that “any 

action . . . shall be brought in the County of Marin, State of California” established that action 

should be remanded to Marin County Superior Court “ because there is no federal court in Marin 

County” ); but see Merrell v. Renier, No. 06-cv-404, 2006 WL 1587414, at *2 (W.D. Wash. June 

6, 2006) (holding that “a forum selection clause that mandates venue ‘in the county of residence of 

the non-breaching party,’ does not “prohibit filing or removing an action in a federal district court 

that encompasses the county, but has no courthouse within the county”).2

 

2 Courts in other Circuits have likewise disagreed on this issue. Compare Yakin v. Tyler Hill 

Corp., 566 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 2009) (holding that remand to state court was proper because “[a] 

reasonable person reviewing the statement ‘It is agreed that the venue and place of trial of any 

dispute that may arise out of this Agreement . . . shall be in Nassau County, New York,’ would 

necessarily conclude that the parties intended that litigation take place in an appropriate venue in 

Nassau County” and there was no “federal court located in Nassau County at the time of th[e] 

litigation”), with Nahigian v. Juno-Loudoun, LLC, 661 F. Supp. 2d 563, 568 (E.D. Va. 2009) 

(noting that “a split of authority exists on the following issue: whether a forum selection clause 

that sets jurisdiction in a particular county—but not a particular court system—gives jurisdiction 

Case 3:16-cv-03200-JST Document 27 Filed 09/09/16 Page 4 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Design Group’s arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. In particular, the Court finds

Project Development Group, Inc. v. Sonoma County Junior College District, the principal case

relied on by Design Group, ECF No. 21 at 10–12, distinguishable because the forum selection 

clause in that case included an express reference to federal court. No. 07-cv-02987-WHA, 2007 

WL 2518034 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2007), at *1 (“The agreement contained a forum-selection 

clause stating that ‘venue shall be with the appropriate state or federal court located in Sonoma 

County, California.’”) (emphasis added); see also id. (“Even though there is no appropriate federal 

district courthouse literally in Sonoma County, the inclusion of language supporting federal court 

as an appropriate venue supports the interpretation that our district is an appropriate forum.”);

Guenther v. Crosscheck Inc., No. 09-cv-01106-WHA, 2009 WL 1248107, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr.

30, 2009) (distinguishing Project Development Group because it “concerned a[] . . . forumselection clause that expressly referred to ‘the appropriate state or federal court located in Sonoma 

County.’” (emphasis in Guenther)). Here, no such express reference to federal court is present in 

paragraph 24.

Ultimately, the Court concludes that the forum selection clause in paragraph 24 is 

mandatory, exclusive, and unambiguous, requiring that disputes will be resolved in Sonoma

County Superior Court. The fact that paragraph 18(4)(a) provides that “jurisdiction for any legal 

action shall be the Sonoma County Superior Court for the State of California” only reinforces the 

Court’s conclusion.3

B. Attorneys’ Fees

Redwood Hill moves for attorney’s fees. Courts may award attorney’s fees where the 

removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal. Martin v. Franklin 

Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). Because Design Group raised legitimate arguments for 

 

to the federal district court that encompasses but is not located in the county,” and denying a 

motion to remand in such circumstances).

3 Because the contracts’ language is unambiguous, the Court need not consider Design Group’s 

arguments that: (1) ambiguous contract language should be construed against the drafter, 

Redwood Hill; and (2) Redwood Hill’s alleged rejection of a proposed exclusive jurisdiction 

clause during contract negotiations means that the two disputed paragraphs are permissive. ECF 

No. 21 at 13–14.

Case 3:16-cv-03200-JST Document 27 Filed 09/09/16 Page 5 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

its interpretation of the forum selection clauses, based on relevant cases in this Circuit, the Court 

concludes that attorney’s fees are not warranted. 

CONCLUSION

Redwood Hill’s motion to remand is granted. The action is remanded to the Sonoma

County Superior Court. Redwood Hill’s request for attorneys’ fees is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-03200-JST Document 27 Filed 09/09/16 Page 6 of 6