Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01583/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01583-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

PAMELA CRAWFORD, on behalf of

herself and all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv1583-GPC(KSC)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

CHANGE VENUE AND TRANSFER

THE CASE TO THE UNITED

STATE DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF

CALIFORNIA; AND DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES FROM DEFENDANT’S

ANSWER

[Dkt. Nos. 15, 17.]

vs.

BEACHBODY, LLC,

Defendant.

Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to change venue to transfer this action

to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. (Dkt. No. 15.) 

Plaintiff filed an opposition and Defendant filed a reply. (Dkt. Nos. 19, 22.) Plaintiff

also filed a motion to strike affirmative defenses of Defendant’s answer. (Dkt. No. 17.) 

Defendant filed an opposition and Plaintiff replied. (Dkt. Nos. 21, 24.) Based on the

reasoning below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to change venue and

transfers the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of

California. Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion to

strike affirmative defenses from Defendant’s answer.

/ / / /

- 1 - [14cv1583-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:14-cv-01583-GPC-KSC Document 26 Filed 11/05/14 Page 1 of 13
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

Background

On July 1, 2014, Plaintiff Pamela Crawford filed a putative class action

complaint alleging violations of the California False Advertising law; California

Consumers Legal Remedies Act; Unfair Competition Law; Breach of Express

Warranty; and Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness as to Defendant Beach Body’s 

anti-aging skincare product under the name Derm Exclusive featuring a product called

Fill & Freeze. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl.) Defendant marketed this product through

websites, videos and television infomercials as an “instant wrinkle eraser.” (Id. ¶ 1.) 

It claims that Fill & Freeze not only “eliminates the appearance of wrinkles . . .

instantly,” but also provides long lasting therapeutic results by “promot[ing] cell

renewal.” (Id.) Beachbody also claims that with pads, “serum,” and a moisturizer, Fill

& Freeze delivers results “as good as – or even better than – the top in-office cosmetic

procedures.” (Id.) On April 21, 2013, Plaintiff ordered and paid for the Derm

Exclusive 4-Piece kit which contained the Fill & Freeze product through the internet

via Beachbody’s website. (Id. ¶¶ 22, 23; Dkt. No. 15-2, Gelfand Decl. ¶ 4.)

At the final page of placing an order, she was required to click an orange box

containing the words “Place Order.” Immediately above the “Place Order” box, there

waslanguage thatsaid “By clicking Place Order below, you are agreeing that you have

read and understand the Beachbody Purchase Terms and Conditions, and Team

Beachbody Terms and Conditions.” The words “Terms and Conditions” were in blue

font, while the surrounding language was in grey font, and were hyperlinked to the

actual Terms and Conditions. The effect of this was that a purchaser who clicked the

blue “Terms and Conditions” language was shown the Terms and Conditions in a new

window that opened on their screen in front of other windows that were already open.

A purchaser could then navigate through the written Terms and Conditions.

(Id. ¶¶ 6-8, Ex. B.) 

The first paragraph of the Terms and Conditions provided in all capital letters:

“BY USING THIS WEB SITE OR ANY WEB SITE OF BEACHBODY, LLC, AND

- 2 - [14cv1583-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:14-cv-01583-GPC-KSC Document 26 Filed 11/05/14 Page 2 of 13
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

TEAM BEACHBODY, AND/OR PLACING AN ORDER FOR BEACHBODY,

LLC’S PRODUCTS OR SERVICES,YOUAGREETOBEBOUND AND ABIDE BY

BY [sic] THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND ANY AMENDMENTS

THERETO, . . .” Users are also advised, “IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS

AND CONDITIONS, PLEASE DO NOT USE THE SITE OR ORDER OR USE

BEACHBODY’S PRODUCTS OR SERVICES.” (Id. ¶ 8, Ex. C.) The Terms and

Conditions to which Plaintiff agreed when she completed her online purchase

contained a forum selection clause which provided,

Applicable Law and Venue

These Terms and Conditions shall be governed by and construed in

accordance with the laws of the State of California, without resort to

its conflict of law provisions. You agree that any action at law or in

equity arising out of or relating to the Terms and Conditions or your

use of the Sites shall be filed only in the Superior Court of Los Angeles

County, California, or the United States District Court for the Central

District of California, and except as stated herein you hereby

irrevocably and unconditionally consent and submit to the exclusive

jurisdiction of such courts over any suit, action, or proceeding arising

out of the Terms and Conditions. 

(Id., Ex. C at 18.) 

Defendant seeks to enforce the forum selection provision in the Beachbody and

Team Beachbody Terms and Conditions of use where the parties allegedly agreed to

venue in the Central District of California. Plaintiff opposes for numerous reasons.

Discussion

A. Motion to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)

The Ninth Circuit applies federal law to the interpretation and enforcement of

forum selection clauses. Manetti-Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci America, Inc., 858 F.2d 509, 1

513 (9th Cir. 1988) (diversity case); Doe 1 v. AOL, LLC, 552 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir.

2009) (class action alleging violations of the federal electronic privacy law and various

violations of California law). 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides: “(a) For the convenience

The Court notes that, in her opposition, Plaintiff improperly applies California 1

law.

- 3 - [14cv1583-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:14-cv-01583-GPC-KSC Document 26 Filed 11/05/14 Page 3 of 13
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

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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 

1. Validity of Forum Selection Clause

First, Plaintiff challengesthe validity ofthe forumselection clause arguing there

was no mutual assent because she does “not recall seeing or agreeing to any terms and

conditions on the BeachBody website.” (Dkt. No. 19-2, Crawford Decl. ¶ 4.) 

Defendant disagrees. 

The principles of contractstill apply to new commerce conducted on the Internet

which require mutual assent. See Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171, 1175

(9th Cir. 2014) (citing Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393, 403 (2d Cir.

2004)). Contracts on the internet consist of either a “clickwrap” or “browsewrap”

agreement. A “browsewrap” agreement does notrequire the user to expressly manifest

assent to the terms and conditions; it contains a notice, through a hyperlink, posted

somewhere on the website. See Nguyen, 763 F.3d at 1176; In re Zappos.com, Inc.,

Customer Data Sec. Breach Litigation, 893 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1073 (D. Nev. Sept. 27,

2012. By visiting the website, the user agrees to the Terms of Use not listed on the site

but available only by clicking a hyperlink. Nguyen, 763 F.3d at 1176. Since there is

no affirmative action required by the website user to agree to the terms and conditions

of a contract, “the determination of the validity of the browsewrap contract depends on

whether the user has actual or constructive knowledge of a websites’ terms and

conditions.” Id. at 1176. 

A “clickwrap” agreement requires usersto expresslymanifest assent to the terms

by, for example, clicking an “I accept” button. It “presents the user with a message on

his or her computer screen, requiring that the user manifest his or her assent to the

terms of the license agreement by clicking on an icon. The product cannot be obtained

or used unless and until the icon is clicked.” Specht v. Netscape Commc’ns Corp., 306

F.3d 17, 22 n. 4 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting Specht, 150 F. Supp. 2d at 593-94). Clickwrap

- 4 - [14cv1583-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:14-cv-01583-GPC-KSC Document 26 Filed 11/05/14 Page 4 of 13
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

agreements have been held to constitute mutual assent. See Treiber & Straub, Inc. v.

UPS, 474 F.3d 379, 382 (7th Cir. 2007) (finding a clickwrap process to have “provided

adequate notice” to customers when it required clicking assent, the terms repeated the

disclaimer of liability several times and referred to the pertinent parts of the contract

that was also available on the business's website); Van Tassell v. United Marketing

Group., LLC, 795 F. Supp. 2d 770, 790 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (because clickwrap agreements

require affirmative action on the part of the user to manifest assent, courts regularly

uphold their validity when challenged). 

The validity of the browsewrap agreement turns on whether the website puts a

reasonably prudent user on inquiry notice of the terms of the contract. Specht, 306

F.3d at 30–31. The conspicuousness and placement of the “Terms of Use” hyperlink,

other notices given to users of the terms of use, and the website’s general design all

contribute to whether a reasonably prudent user would have inquiry notice of a

browsewrap agreement. Nguyen, 763 F.3d at 1177. Courts have held that a modified

or hybrid clickwrap/browsewrap agreement constitutes a binding contract where the

user is provided with an opportunity to review the terms of service in the form of a

hyperlink immediately under the “I Accept” button and clicks that button. Swift v.

Zynga Game Network, Inc., 805 F. Supp. 2d 904, 911-12 (N.D. Cal. 2011); see also

Fteja v. Facebook, Inc., 841 F. Supp. 2d 829, (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (right below the “Sign

Up” button, the following sentence is displayed, “By clicking Sign Up, you are

indicating that you have read and agree to the Terms of Service” which wasreasonably

communicated to the user). 

This case involves a modified or hybrid clickwrap/browsewrap agreement. In

order to complete the purchase, Plaintiff had to click an orange button that read

“PLACE ORDER”. (Dkt. No. 15-2, Gelfand Decl. ¶ 6.) The following sentence

appears immediately above the “PLACE ORDER” button, “By clicking Place Order

below, you are agreeing that you have read and understand the Beachbody Purchase

Terms and Conditions, and Team Beachbody Terms and Conditions.” (Dkt. No. 15-5,

- 5 - [14cv1583-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:14-cv-01583-GPC-KSC Document 26 Filed 11/05/14 Page 5 of 13
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

Gelfand Decl., Ex. B.) The terms “Terms and Conditions” were in blue font while the

rest of the language in the sentence was in grey font, which was hyperlinked to the full

text of the Terms and Conditions. (Id. ¶ 6.) Upon clicking the Terms and Conditions

hyperlink, a separate window would have opened up presenting the full text of the

Terms and Conditions. (Id. ¶ 7.) Accordingly, the Court concludes that the parties

agreed to Terms and Conditions of Use, including the forum selection clause. See

Swift, 805 F. Supp. 2d at 911-12; Fteja, 841 F. Supp. 2d at 829. 

2. Enforcement of the Forum Selection Clause

In a case involving a forum-selection clause, § 1404(a) requires that a

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

cases.” Atlantic Marine Cons. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Western Dist. of

Texas, 134 S. Ct. 568, 579 (2013). “When the parties have agreed to a valid

2

forum-selection clause, a district court should ordinarily transfer the case to the forum

specified in that clause. Only under extraordinary circumstances unrelated to the

convenience of the parties should a § 1404(a) motion be denied.” Id. at 581. A valid

forum-selection clause bargained for by the parties, protects their legitimate

expectations and further vital interests of the justice system.” Id.; Murphy v. Schneider

Nat’l, Inc., 362 F.3d 1133, 1140 (9th Cir. 2004) (forum selection clauses are

presumptively valid). 

A valid forum-selection clause when the parties contract for it alters the § 1404

analysis in three ways. Atlantic Marine Cons. Co., Inc., 134 S. Ct. at 581-82. “First,

the plaintiff's choice of forum merits no weight.” Id. at 582. Second, a court

evaluating a defendant’s § 1404(a) motion to transfer based on a forum-selection clause

should not consider arguments about the parties’ private interests. Id. “Third, when

a party bound by a forum-selection clause flouts its contractual obligation and filessuit

The proper analysis in a case involving a forum-selection clause is through a

2

transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and not a motion to dismiss under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) or 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Atlantic Marine Const. Co.,

Inc., 134 S. Ct. at 575.

- 6 - [14cv1583-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:14-cv-01583-GPC-KSC Document 26 Filed 11/05/14 Page 6 of 13
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

in a different forum, a § 1404(a) transfer of venue will not carry with it the original

venue's choice-of-law rules—a factor that in some circumstances may affect

public-interest considerations.” Id.

However, a “choice-of-forum clause should be held unenforceable if

enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which suit is

brought.” Richards v. Lloyd's of London, 135 F.3d 1289, 1293 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing

M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off–Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 15 (1972)). A forum selection

clause is “prima facie valid and should be enforced unless enforcement isshown by the

resisting party to be ‘unreasonable’ under the circumstances.” M/S Bremen v. Zapata

Off–Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10 (1972). 

A forum-selection clause is “unreasonable” if: (1) the inclusion of the clause in

the agreement was the product of “fraud, undue influence or overweening bargaining

power”; (2) the party wishing to repudiate the clause would effectively be deprived of

his or her day in court were the clause enforced; and (3) “enforcement would

contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which suit is brought.” M/S Bremen,

407 U.S. at 12-18; Murphy, 362 F.3d at1140. The “unreasonableness” exception to

enforcement of a forum selection clause isto be narrowly construed. Argueta v. Banco

Mexicano, S.A., 87 F.3d 320, 325 (9th Cir. 1996). In addition, the party challenging

a forum selection clause bears a “heavy burden of showing that its enforcement would

be unreasonable, unfair, or unjust”, M/S Bremen, 407 U.S. at 15, and “that trial in the

chosen forum would be so difficult and inconvenient that the party would effectively

be denied a meaningful day in court.” Argueta, 87 F.3d at 324 (quoting Pelleport

Investors, Inc. v. Budco Quality Theatres, Inc., 741 F.2d 273, 280 (9th Cir. 1984)). 

Plaintiff does not challenge the forum selection clause on the factors articulated

in M/S Bremen. Plaintiff raises state law defenses to contracts which do not address

the factors the Court must consider in determining whether the forum selection clause

is enforceable. See e.g. Argueta, 87 F.3d at 325 (fear of prosecution was not relevant

in determining reasonableness of enforcing forum selection clause). 

- 7 - [14cv1583-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:14-cv-01583-GPC-KSC Document 26 Filed 11/05/14 Page 7 of 13
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

a. Overreaching

While Plaintiff does not explicitly apply the factors in M/S Bremen, the Court

analyzes Plaintiff’s unconscionable argument under the overreaching factor. See

Applied Waterproofing Tech., Inc. v. American Safety Indem. Co., No. 09 cv 1040-

IEG(NLS), 2009 WL 2448272, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2009) (unconscionable

argument discussed under overreaching factor). Plaintiff argues that the Terms and

Conditions is a contract of adhesion since she had no ability to bargain with

3

Beachbody and the agreement was presented on a “take it or leave it” basis.4

Defendant argues that the Terms and Conditions is not unconscionable. 

Federal law controls whether a forum selection clause is unconscionable. East

Bay Women’s Health, Inc. v. Glostream, Inc., No. C 14-00712 WHA, 2014 WL

1760989 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2014). The Supreme Court has held that “take it or leave

it” adhesion contracts do not necessarily render a forum-selection clause unenforceable. 

See Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 593-94 (1991) (rejecting court

of appeals’ “determination that a nonnegotiated forum-selection clause in a form ticket

contract is never enforceable simply because it is not the subject of bargaining.”). The

Ninth Circuit has held that unequal bargaining power does not render a forumselection

clause unenforceable. Murphy, 362 F.3d at 1141. Murphy involved an employment

contract and the court noted that if the contract was not negotiable and the plaintiff

opposed the forum selection clause, the plaintiff had the opportunity to seek work

elsewhere. Id. “To decline enforcement of a forum selection merely on the showing

of non-negotiability and power difference made by [the plaintiff] would disrupt the

Plaintiff must show that the forum selection clause, itself, as opposed to the 3

entire contract, is the product of fraud or overreaching. See Scherk v. Alberto-Culver

Co., 417 U.S. 506, 519 (n. 14 (1974) (“it means that an arbitration or forum-selection

clause in a contract is not enforceable if the inclusion of that clause in the contract was

the product of fraud or coercion.”) In her opposition, she improperly challenges the

Terms and Conditions as a whole. 

Plaintiff cites mainly to cases which address unconscionability of arbitration

4

agreements under California law or cases discussing forum selection clauses within

challenged arbitration provisions. These cases are inapposite. 

- 8 - [14cv1583-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:14-cv-01583-GPC-KSC Document 26 Filed 11/05/14 Page 8 of 13
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

settled expectations of the parties here and would threaten the ability of employers to

require that disputes with their employees normally be settled in their neighborhood,

absent some other exigency.” Id. 

Here, Plaintiff’s argument that the Terms and Conditions was not negotiable

cannot rebut the presumption in favor of the forum selection clause. See id. Plaintiff

has not raised an argument that enforcement of the clause would contravene a strong

public policy of California and that plaintiff would be deprived of her day in court. 

Defendant seeks to transfer this case within the state of California to the Central

District of California located in Los Angeles, California, a neighboring district. As a

result, Plaintiff has not argued and there does not appear to be any difficulty or

inconvenience with litigating the case in Los Angeles. Moreover, Defendant’s

principal place of business is in Santa Monica, California. 

Based on the M/S Bremen factors, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed

to bear the “heavy burden” to show that the forum selection clause is unreasonable. 

The Court now addresses Plaintiff’s remaining arguments. 

B. Additional Arguments

1. Illusory

Plaintiff argues that the Terms and Conditions are illusory and unenforceable

because Defendant has not really promised to do anything and consideration islacking.

Specifically, she contends that the provision that Beachbody “may update or amend

these Terms and Conditions from time to time to comply with law or to meet our

changing business requirements without notice to you” makes the contract illusory

because of Defendant’s right to amend unilaterally. Defendant opposes.

A contract is illusory if a party retains the unilateral, unrestricted right to

terminate an agreement because there is no obligation to receive consent from, or even

notify, the other parties to the contract. In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Sec.

Breach Litigation, 893 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1065 (D. Nev. 2012). 

While Beachbody can amend the Terms and Conditions without notice to the

- 9 - [14cv1583-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:14-cv-01583-GPC-KSC Document 26 Filed 11/05/14 Page 9 of 13
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

buyer, limitations apply. Plaintiff only providesthe relevant provision thatsupport her

position and does not provide the entire provision. The provision provides,

We may update or amend these Terms and Conditions from time to

time to complywith law orto meet our changing businessrequirements

without notice to you. Any updates or amendment will be posted on

the Sites. The Terms and Conditions displayed on the Sites at the time

the order is accepted will apply to the order. 

(Dkt. No. 15-6, Gelfand Decl., Ex. C at 8.) 

As argued in Defendant’s reply, this provision statesthat any modifications will 

be posted on the website and can be viewed by the user providing notice. Moreover,

the terms of conditions that apply to a specific order are the ones that are displayed “at

the time the order is accepted.” Therefore, the Terms and Conditions that applied to

Plaintiff’s order in April 2013 cannot be unilaterally changed. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

argument is without merit. 

2. False Advertising Dispute

Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not shown that a valid forum selection clause

governs the false advertising claims in this case because Beachbody only provided

“Team Beachbody Terms and Conditions”, not “Beachbody Purchase Terms and

Condition” which are both provided in the hyperlink when Plaintiff pressed the “Place

Order” button. She contends that the Terms and Conditions only apply to “any action

at law or inequity arising out of or relating to the Terms and Condition or your use of

the Sites” and not to any purchases. (Dkt. No. 15-6, Gelfand Decl., Ex. C. at 18.) 

Defendant argues that the Team Beachbody Terms and Conditions applies to any

purchases of products. 

The relevant Terms and Conditions state, 

BY USING THIS WEB SITE OR ANY WEB SITE OF

BEACHBODY, LLC, AND TEAM BEACHBODY, AND/OR

PLACING AN ORDER FOR BEACHBODY, LLC’S, PRODUCTS OR

SERVICES, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND AND ABIDE BY THESE

TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND ANY AMENDMENTS

THERETO . . . .

(Dkt. No. 15-6, Gelfand Decl., Ex. C. at 2) (emphasis added). In addition, it provides, 

The Terms and Conditions constitute the entire agreement between

- 10 - [14cv1583-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:14-cv-01583-GPC-KSC Document 26 Filed 11/05/14 Page 10 of 13
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

Beachbody and you with respect to your use of the Sites, your

purchase of products and servicesthrough the Sites, and as applicable

any products or services of Beachbody.

(Id. at 19) (emphasis added).

The “Team Beachbody Terms and Conditions” apply to purchases made on the

website, and therefore applies to the issues in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

argument is without merit. 

3. Phone Purchase

Plaintiff argues that since the forum selection clause does not apply to the entire

dispute, the court should deny the motion to transfer. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s

subsequent telephone order for only Fill & Freeze should not negate her agreement to

the Terms and Conditions. 

In support, Plaintiff cites to one Ninth Circuit case where the Court held that an

arbitration clause, in the first agreement, did not govern a dispute based on a

subsequent agreement. Int’l Ambassador Program, Inc. v. Archexpo, 68 F.3d 337, 340

(9th Cir. 1995). In that case, the court had to determine whether the April agreement

and the July agreement were separate or interrelated agreements. Id. The April

agreement had an arbitration provision while the July Agreement did not. Id. at 339. 

The court concluded that the two agreements were independent and that the arbitration

clause in the April agreement did not control the subsequent July agreement between

the parties. Id. The court noted that the “agreements concerned two separate types of

tours and completely different groups of tourists” and the proof required to establish

the arbitration claims under the April agreement had nothing to do with the dispute

under the July agreement.” Id. 

Here, Plaintiff initially placed her order on-line and subsequently renewed it. 

(Dkt. No. 15-2, Gelfand Decl. ¶ 4; Dkt. No. 19-1, Crawford Decl. ¶¶ 3-5.) She states

that when her order automatically renewed, she called to cancel. (Dkt. No. 19-1,

Crawford Decl. ¶ 5.) During the call, the customer service representative cancelled her

order that was automatically renewing. (Id.) In that same phone call, Plaintiff was

- 11 - [14cv1583-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:14-cv-01583-GPC-KSC Document 26 Filed 11/05/14 Page 11 of 13
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

convinced to purchase the Fill & Freeze product alone instead of the four piece system. 

(Id.) 

The Court concludes that the case cited by Plaintiff does not support her

argument because the phone purchase of the Fill & Freeze product appears to be an

extension of her online purchase. They did not involve two separate and independent

transactions involving different products. Moreover, the Court notes that her

Complaint is based on her initial purchase of Fill & Freeze which she purchased online

through the Beachbody website. Therefore, the Terms and Conditions apply to her

case. Even if the forum selection clause did not apply to the one phone purchase order,

it should not negate the application of the forum selection clause in this case since the

crux of her case is based on the initial online purchase. See Vision Tech. Design &

Mfg. v. General Wire Spring Co., No. CV–F–07–412 OWW/WMW, 2007 WL

2069945, at *8 (E.D. Cal. July 17, 2007) (declining to enforce forum selection clause

contained in purchase orders where “not all of [plaintiff's] claims are based on breach

of the purchase orders and [plaintiff’s] claim for declaratory relief as to an intellectual

property dispute is not based on a contract resulting from a purchase order.”); Pegasus

Transp. Inc. v. Lynden Air Freight, Inc., 152 F.R.D. 574, 577 (N.D. Ill.1993) (declining

to enforce forum selection clause where clause did not apply to over half of the

plaintiff's claims). Therefore, the Court concludes that the forum selection clause is

enforceable. 

 C. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses 

Because this case will be transferred to the Central District of California, the

Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to strike affirmative defenses without prejudice. 

Plaintiff may re-file the motion in the appropriate forum after this case is transferred. 

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to change venue and transfer the case

to the Central District ofCalifornia. TheCourt also DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff’s motion to strike affirmative defenses so that she may re-file the motion in

- 12 - [14cv1583-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:14-cv-01583-GPC-KSC Document 26 Filed 11/05/14 Page 12 of 13
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 Central District of California. The hearing set for November 7, 2014 shall be

vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 5, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 13 - [14cv1583-GPC(KSC)]

Case 3:14-cv-01583-GPC-KSC Document 26 Filed 11/05/14 Page 13 of 13