Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02162/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02162-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332lr Diversity - Labor

---

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

ELIZABETH DUGAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15cv2162-LAB (RBB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

vs. CHANGE VENUE (DOCKET NO. 5)

AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY

SYSTEM, INC.,

Defendant.

Elizabeth Dugan sued her former employer, American Public University System,

alleging labor code violations. American Public seeks to transfer the case to the Northern

District of West Virginia on the basis of a clause in Dugan's offer letter. (Docket no. 5.) 

Dugan argues that the clause is permissive, so it doesn't forbid her from filing this lawsuit in

her chosen forum. (Docket no. 8.) The clause states:

The Laws of the State of West Virginia, excluding the choice of law provisions

thereof, shall apply to this agreement. You hereby irrevocably consent and

submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia or the Courts of Jefferson County, West Virginia in any

action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement, and you

hereby irrevocably agree that all claims in respect of any such action or

proceeding may be heard and determined in such courts.

(Docket no. 1-2, Exhibit A.)

"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

- 1 - 15cv2162

Case 3:15-cv-02162-LAB-RBB Document 11 Filed 11/30/15 Page 1 of 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

or to any district or division to which all parties have consented." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 

Normally, district courts applying section 1404(a) weigh a variety of private- and

public-interest factors and decide whether "a transfer would serve the convenience of parties

and witnesses and otherwise promote the interest of justice." Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S.

Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Texas, 134 S. Ct. 568, 581 (2013) (internal quotation marks

omitted). Where there's a mandatory forum selection clause, "[t]he calculus changes"

because the clause "represents the parties agreement as to the most proper forum." Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted). In that case, the forum selection clause is "given

controlling weight in all but the most exceptional cases." Id. Where the clause is permissive,

however, it "only confers jurisdiction in the designated forum, but does not deny plaintiff his

choice of forum, if jurisdiction there is otherwise appropriate." Glob. Seafood Inc. v. Bantry

Bay Mussels Ltd., 659 F.3d 221, 225 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).

"Mandatory forum selection clauses . . . require that disputes must be brought in the

designated forum, to the exclusion of all other fora where jurisdiction may also lie." Glob.

Seafood Inc., 659 F.3d at 225. Where "only jurisdiction is specified," the clause "will

generally not be enforced without some further language indicating the parties' intent to

make jurisdiction exclusive." Id. "Forum selection clauses lacking any clear exclusionary

or obligatory language—i.e., specific language of exclusion—are, therefore, permissive and

not subject to a presumption of enforceability." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The

operative phrase in Dugan's offer letter provides that she "irrevocably consent[s] and

submit[s] to the jurisdiction of" specified West Virginia courts. (Docket no. 1-2, Exhibit A.) 

Courts consistently hold that this language creates a permissive forum selection clause

because it lacks clear exclusionary or obligatory language. See, e.g., Polk Cty. Recreational

Ass'n v. Susquehanna Patriot Commercial Leasing Co., 734 N.W.2d 750, 758-59 (Neb.

2007) (finding a forum selection clause providing that "the parties consent and submit to the

jurisdiction of Pennsylvania courts" was permissive); Ellington Credit Fund, Ltd. v. Select

Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 2007 WL 3256210, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2007) (finding forum

selection clause where parties agreed to "irrevocably submit to the jurisdiction of the United

- 2 - 15cv2162

Case 3:15-cv-02162-LAB-RBB Document 11 Filed 11/30/15 Page 2 of 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

States District Court for the Southern District of New York and any court in the State of New

York located in the City and County of New York" was permissive). Likewise, the last portion

of the clause at issue here employs the word "may" rather than "must" or "shall," and

therefore does no more than establish that jurisdiction is proper in the specified West

Virginia courts; it doesn't require West Virginia courts as the exclusive forum.

Because the forum selection clause is permissive, it remains American Public's

burden to establishing the factors considered by the Court in the § 1404(a) analysis. Elorac,

Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc., 2014 WL 7261279, at *13 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 19, 2014). 

American Public's argument is premised on its contention that the clause is mandatory; it

didn't provide analysis as to whether transfer pursuant to § 1404(a) would be appropriate if

the Court found the clause permissive. Thus, American Public hasn't met its burden to show

transfer is proper. The motion to change venue (Docket no. 5) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 24, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 15cv2162

Case 3:15-cv-02162-LAB-RBB Document 11 Filed 11/30/15 Page 3 of 3