Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03802/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03802-3/pdf.json

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WRI WEST GATE SOUTH, L.P.,

Plaintiff,

v.

RELIANCE MEDIAWORKS (USA) INC., 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03802-JSC 

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING RE: MOTION TO CHANGE 

VENUE

Re: Dkt. No. 27

Plaintiff WRI West Gate South L.P. (“WRI”) filed this action against Defendant Reliance 

Mediaworks, Ltd. (“Reliance”) alleging breach of contract and breach of guaranty claims related 

to a lease agreement between Plaintiff and one of Defendant’s subsidiaries which was guaranteed 

by Defendant. Although Plaintiff agreed to extend the time for Defendant to file a responsive 

pleading, Defendant failed to answer or otherwise appear and default was entered against it. 

Defendant subsequently moved to set aside default, which Plaintiff did not oppose, and the Court 

granted. Defendant thereafter filed the now pending motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), or in the alternative for transfer of this action to the Oakland Division of 

the Northern District of California contending that venue is improper under the forum selection 

clause in the parties’ lease agreement. (Dkt. No. 27.) Plaintiff opposes the motion contending that 

Defendant waived any objection to venue through its earlier default, and even if this were not the 

case, the parties’ forum selection clause allows for venue in either a state or federal court within 

Alameda County.

Neither parties’ briefs address the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Atlantic Marine 

Construction Co. v. United States District Court, 134 S. Ct. 568 (2013). There, the court 

Case 3:14-cv-03802-JD Document 38 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 3
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

explained that 

[w]hen venue is challenged, the court must determine whether the 

case falls within one of the three categories set out in [28 U.S.C. §] 

1391(b). If it does, venue is proper; if it does not, venue is improper, 

and the case must be dismissed or transferred under § 1406(a). 

Whether the parties entered into a contract containing a forumselection clause has no bearing on whether a case falls into one of 

the categories of cases listed in § 1391(b). As a result, a case filed in 

a district that falls within § 1391 may not be dismissed under § 

1406(a) or Rule 12(b)(3).

Id. at 577. Thus, Rule 12(b)(3) is “not [the] proper mechanism[ ] to enforce a forum-selection 

clause[;]” rather, “[Section] 1404(a) and the forum non conveniens doctrine provide appropriate 

enforcement mechanisms.” Id.; Niburutech Ltd. V. Jang, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, No. C 14-3091, 2014 

WL 6790031, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2014); see, e.g., Monastiero v. appMobi, Inc., 15 F. Supp. 

3d 956, 959-60 (N.D. Cal. 2014); Marcotte v. Micros Systs., Inc., No. C-14-01372, 2014 WL 

4477349, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2014).

Here, the sole basis on which Defendant seeks to dismiss for improper venue is that the 

forum selection clause so requires. Defendant does not contend that venue is improper in this 

District pursuant to Section 1391, and indeed, venue appears to lie here under this statute as “a 

substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim occurred” in the Northern District of 

California, and Defendant did business in this District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), (c). Thus, it 

appears that dismissal for improper venue is not required under Rule 12(b)(3) or Section 1406(a). 

However, neither party has used the proper standard to be applied in a motion where, as here, the 

parties appear to agree that there is a valid forum selection clause, but disagree as to its 

application. Under Atlantic Marine, if there is a valid forum selection clause, then the Plaintiff 

bears the burden of showing exceptional circumstances unrelated to the convenience of the parties 

that make transfer inappropriate. 134 S. Ct. at 581; see also Rowen v. Soundview Commc’ns, Inc., 

No. 14-cv-05530, 2015 WL 899294, at *3 (citations omitted); Bayol v. Zipcar, Inc., No. 14-cv02483, 2014 WL 4793935, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2014). 

Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to submit supplemental briefing addressing: (1) 

whether Plaintiff’s waiver argument remains viable in light of Atlantic Marine’s conclusion that 

enforcement of a forum selection clause is not a venue issue, and (2) the propriety of dismissal 

Case 3:14-cv-03802-JD Document 38 Filed 03/17/15 Page 2 of 3
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

under Section 1404(a) given the forum selection clause here. The parties’ supplemental briefs are 

due by March 24, 2015. The hearing regarding this motion is rescheduled for April 2, 2015 at 

9:00 a.m. in Courtroom F, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2015

______________________________________

 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-03802-JD Document 38 Filed 03/17/15 Page 3 of 3