Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00627/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00627-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1 

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 

HELAINA WASHINGTON, individually 

and on behalf of others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff 

v. 

CASHFORIPHONES.COM, fka 

Cashforlaptops.com, 

 Defendant. 

Civil No. 15-cv-0627-JAH (JMA)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO TRANSFER UNDER 28 

U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Doc. # 30) 

INTRODUCTION 

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 

1404(a). (Doc. # 30). After careful review of the parties’ pleadings, and for the reasons set 

forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

Defendant is an internet-based company that purchases used electronic devices from 

individuals. Individuals desiring to sell their used iPhones to Defendant input the model 

and condition of their iPhone on Defendant’s website and are instantly provided an initial 

quote of the amount that Defendant will pay for the phone. All individuals who wish to 

sell their iPhones to Defendant via Defendant’s website are required to click a box signifying 

Case 3:15-cv-00627-JAH-JMA Document 39 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 12
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

that they agree to Defendant’s Terms and Conditions (“Terms”). The Terms contain a 

mandatory forum selection and choice of law clause. Specifically, the Terms provide: 

THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE GOVERNED BY, 

AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, NEVADA 

LAW, AND NO CONFLICT OF LAWS OR PROVISIONS OF 

ANY JURISDICTION WILL APPLY TO THESE TERMS AND 

CONDITIONS. BY CHECKING THE BOX STATING “I 

AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS” AND 

THEREAFTER CLICKING ON “SELL NOW,” YOU ARE 

AUTHORIZING THIS TRANSACTION PURSUANT TO ALL 

SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS. CHECKING THE BOX 

“I AGREE” FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGES YOUR 

AGREEMENT THAT ANY ACTION AT LAW OR IN EQUITY 

ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THESE TERMS AND 

CONDITIONS WILL BE FILED ONLY IN STATE OR 

FEDERAL COURT LOCATED IN RENO, NEVADA AND 

YOU HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY 

CONSENT AND SUBMIT TO THE EXCLUSIVE 

JURISDICTION OF SUCH COURTS OVER ANY SUIT, 

ACTION, OR PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF THESE 

TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 

 (Doc. # 1, Exh. A). Once a party agrees to the Terms, Defendant sends the party packaging 

with pre-paid postage in which the party can ship his iPhone to Defendant. Upon receiving 

the iPhone, Defendant may revise its initial quoted price and notify the party via email of 

any change. The party then has three days in which to contact Defendant and reject the 

revised price, otherwise, per the Terms, the party is deemed to have accepted the new offer. 

Plaintiff lives in La Mesa, California, and sold her used iPhone to Defendant. In 

January, 2015, Plaintiff received an initial quote of $88 for her used iPhone from 

Defendant’s website. Plaintiff then sent her used iPhone to Defendant. On February 2, 

2015, Defendant sent Plaintiff a revised offer of $9 via email. That same day, Plaintiff 

emailed Defendant declining its revised offer and requesting Defendant return her iPhone. 

Plaintiff also called Defendant several times, but was either put on hold or her call was not 

answered. When Plaintiff finally spoke with someone at Defendant’s company, Plaintiff 

was informed that she could no longer reject Defendant’s revised offer because the threeCase 3:15-cv-00627-JAH-JMA Document 39 Filed 06/01/16 Page 2 of 12
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

day rejection period had expired. Defendant deposited $9 in Plaintiff’s PayPal account on 

February 6, 2015. 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

On March 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Defendant 

alleging violations of: (i) the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), California Civil Code 

§ 1750, et seq., (ii) California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., (iii) 

California Business and Professions Code § 17500, et seq., (iv) California Civil Code § 

1573, (v) fraudulent inducement and representation, (vi) breach of contract, (vii) 

conversion, (viii) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (ix) fraud, 

(x) fraudulent misrepresentation, and (xi) negligent misrepresentation. (See Doc. # 1). On 

June 18, 2015, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or transfer the action for improper 

venue. (Doc. # 14). On February 26, 2016, this Court denied Defendant’s motion to 

dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and 

denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. (Doc. 

# 27). The Court declined to address whether the matter should be transferred because 

Defendant had not properly requested that relief. Id. 

On March 16, 2016, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Transfer Under 28 

U.S.C. § 1404(a). (Doc. # 30). Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion on April 

20, 2016, and Defendant filed a reply on April 29, 2016. (Docs. # 33, 34). 

LEGAL STANDARD 

In diversity cases, federal courts apply federal law in determining the enforceability 

of forum selection clauses. Manetti–Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci Am., Inc., 858 F.2d 509, 513 (9th 

Cir. 1988). A forum selection clause may be enforced through a motion to transfer under 

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. Of Tex., 

134 S. Ct. 568, 579 (2013). Section 1404(a) states that “[f]or 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 or to any district or division to 

which all parties have consented.” “Section 1404(a) therefore provides a mechanism for 

Case 3:15-cv-00627-JAH-JMA Document 39 Filed 06/01/16 Page 3 of 12
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

enforcement of forum-selection clauses that point to a particular federal district[,] [and] ... 

a proper application of § 1404(a) requires that a forum-selection clause be ‘given controlling 

weight in all but the most exceptional cases.’” Atlantic Marine, 134 S. Ct. at 579 (citing 

Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 33 (1988)). 

When a party brings a motion to transfer pursuant to § 1404(a), the moving party 

must establish: “(1) that venue is proper in the transferor district; (2) that the transferee 

district is one where the action might have been brought; and (3) that transfer will serve 

the convenience of the parties and witnesses and will promote the interest of justice.” 

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 820 F. Supp. 503, 506 (C.D. 

Cal. 1992). Once venue is determined to be proper in both districts, a court must consider 

public factors relating to “the interest of justice” and private factors relating to “the 

convenience of the parties and witnesses.” Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 

805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). Such factors include: (1) plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) 

convenience of the parties and witnesses; (3) ease of access to the evidence; (4) familiarity 

of each forum with the applicable law; (5) feasibility of consolidation with other claims; (6) 

any local interest in the controversy; and (7) the relative court congestion and time of trial 

in each forum. Vu v. Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc., 602 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1156 (N.D. Cal. 

2009). 

“The calculus changes, however, when the parties’ contract contains a valid forumselection clause,” and district courts must adjust their usual § 1404(a) analyses in three 

ways.1

 Atlantic Marine, 134 S. Ct. at 581. “First, the plaintiff’s choice of forum merits no 

weight. Rather, as the party defying the forum-selection clause, the plaintiff bears the 

burden of establishing that transfer to the forum for which the parties bargained is 

unwarranted.” Id. “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,” but instead may only consider arguments regarding public interest factors. Id. at 

 1

 The Supreme Court noted that this analysis presupposes a valid forum selection 

clause. Atlantic Marine Constr. Co., 134 S. Ct. 568, 581, n. 5 (2013). 

Case 3:15-cv-00627-JAH-JMA Document 39 Filed 06/01/16 Page 4 of 12
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

582. Finally, “when a party bound by a forum-selection clause flouts its contractual 

obligation and files suit 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. 

In M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off–Shore Co., the Supreme Court held that contractual 

forum selection clauses “are prima facie valid,” and thus enforceable absent a strong 

showing “that enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust, or that the clause [is] invalid 

for such reasons as fraud or overreaching.” 407 U.S. 1, 10, 15 (1972). “The party seeking 

to avoid the forum selection clause bears ‘a heavy burden of proof.’” Richards v. Lloyd’s of 

London, 135 F.3d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (citing Bremen, 407 U.S. at 17)). 

Federal courts have recognized the following three grounds for declining to enforce 

a forum selection clause: (1) where the inclusion of the clause in the contract was the result 

of “fraud or overreaching,” (2) if the party seeking to avoid the clause would be effectively 

deprived of its day in court in the forum specified in the clause, or (3) if enforcement would 

contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which the suit is brought. Murphy v. 

Schneider Nat’l, Inc., 362 F.3d 1133, 1140 (9th Cir. 2003). 

ANALYSIS 

Defendant provides three grounds for transferring this action to the District of 

Nevada, Northern Division. First, Defendant argues that its request for transfer is governed 

by § 1404(a). (Doc. # 30-1, pg. 3–4). Second, Defendant contends that the forum selection 

clause is valid and enforceable. Id. at 4–10. Finally, Defendant asserts that the Ninth 

Circuit’s holding in Doe 1 v. AOL LLC, 552 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2009), in which the Ninth 

Circuit invalidated a forum selection clause as contrary to California’s public policy, is 

incorrect in light of Supreme Court authority favoring the enforcement of forum selection 

clauses. Id. at 6–9. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s motion should be denied for two 

reasons. First, Plaintiff asserts that this Court denied Defendant’s request to transfer in its 

February 26, 2016 order. (Doc. # 33, pg. 11–14). Plaintiff argues that the denial of 

Case 3:15-cv-00627-JAH-JMA Document 39 Filed 06/01/16 Page 5 of 12
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

Defendant’s prior request to transfer under the doctrine of forum non conveniens precludes 

the instant request to transfer under § 1404(a) because § 1404(a) is merely a codification 

of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Id. at 11. Thus, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s 

motion “amounts to nothing more than a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s 

February 26, 2016 ruling.” Id. at 2. Second, Plaintiff asserts that transfer is inappropriate 

because the forum selection clause is invalid. Plaintiff contends that the forum selection 

clause is invalid because: (1) the underlying contract is void, (2) the forum selection clause 

contravenes California public policy, and (3) the forum selection clause was the product of 

fraud. Id. at 14–22. 

In reply, Defendant makes four arguments. First, Defendant argues that, in the 

February 26, 2016 order, this Court did not rule on whether the matter could be transferred 

under § 1404(a). (Doc. # 34, pg. 1–2). Second, Defendant asserts that a forum selection 

clause is not automatically invalid if contrary to state public policy, but rather that is one 

factor for consideration in determining the enforceability of the clause. Id. at 2–6. Third, 

Defendant contends that federal law governs the enforceability of the forum selection 

clause, and the clause is valid and enforceable thereunder. Id. at 6–9. Lastly, Defendant 

argues that, if the forum selection clause is found invalid, the Court should still transfer this 

matter to the District of Nevada based on convenience factors. Id. at 9–10. Defendant states 

that if the forum selection clause is found invalid, then the choice of law provision selecting 

Nevada law as the governing law would be invalid as well, and Nevada district courts can 

then competently apply California law in this matter. Id. 

A. Reconsideration of the Court’s February 26, 2016 Order 

Before addressing whether the forum selection clause is enforceable, the Court must 

determine whether Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is a motion 

to reconsider the Court’s February 26, 2016 order. In her opposition, Plaintiff asserts that 

the Court already determined that this matter should not be transferred and that Defendant 

is attempting to relitigate this issue without establishing proper grounds for reconsideration. 

The Court disagrees. 

Case 3:15-cv-00627-JAH-JMA Document 39 Filed 06/01/16 Page 6 of 12
7 

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

Defendant is not seeking reconsideration because the Court never determined 

whether this matter should be transferred pursuant to § 1404(a). In the February 26, 2016 

order, this Court denied Defendant’s request to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non 

conveniens. (Doc. # 27, pg. 7). The Court explained therein that the doctrine of forum non 

conveniens applied to Defendant’s attempt to dismiss the action based on the forum 

selection clause language pointing to Nevada state courts. Id. The Court denied Defendant’s 

attempt to do so finding that “a court may not dismiss [an action asserting CLRA violations] 

for improper venue based on a forum selection clause designating an alternate state forum 

that lacks the protections afforded by the CLRA.” Id. The Court specifically declined to 

address whether the action should be transferred because Defendant vehemently argued 

against transfer until its reply brief, and district courts need not consider arguments first 

raised at that stage. Id. at 8 (citing Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 2007)). 

Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) 

is not a motion to reconsider the Court’s February 26, 2016 order. 

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

Plaintiff argues that the forum selection clause is unenforceable because: (1) the 

underlying contract is void because it fails to clearly identify the contracting parties, (2) the 

forum selection clause was the product of fraud, and (3) the forum selection clause 

contravenes California public policy. (Doc. # 33, pg. 14–22). For the following reasons, the 

Court finds that the forum selection clause is valid and enforceable. 

1. The Court Need Not Determine Whether the Entire Contract Is Valid 

Plaintiff argues that the forum selection clause is void because the entire contract is 

invalid for failing to adequately identify the contracting parties. (Doc. # 33, pg. 14). 

Plaintiff explains that the contract refers to Defendant as “we,” and states that “we” means 

Defendant, its affiliates, and subsidiaries. However, the contract fails to name Defendant, 

its affiliates, subsidiaries, or owners, which Plaintiff argues renders the contract 

unenforceable under California law. Defendant contends that the forum selection clause is 

governed by federal law, and is valid and enforceable thereunder. (Doc. # 34, pg. 6–7). 

Case 3:15-cv-00627-JAH-JMA Document 39 Filed 06/01/16 Page 7 of 12
8 

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

Defendant asserts that, even if California law is applicable, the forum selection clause is still 

valid under California Civil Code § 1550 and the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. Id. 

at 7. Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s argument is meritless because Plaintiff sought 

out Defendant’s website and agreed to the Terms, thus Plaintiff knew with whom she was 

contracting. Id. The Court finds that this issue need not be presently addressed. 

When the issue before a district court is limited to venue under §1404(a), the court 

need not address the validity of an entire contract. See SeeComm Network Servs. Corp. v. 

Colt Telecomm., No. C 04-1283, 2004 WL 1960174, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2004) (“To 

hold that the Forum–Selection Clause is invalid because the contract as a whole is invalid 

... requires the Court to assess the merits of the case. [This] analysis is clearly backwards. 

The question before the Court is the validity of the Forum–Selection Clause, not the validity 

of the contract as a whole.”); accord Cream v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc., No. 15-cv-1208, 2015 

WL 4606463, at *6 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2015); Lizdale v. Advanced Planning Servs., Inc., 

No. 10-cv-0834, 2011 WL 1103642, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2011). Instead, a party may 

challenge a forum selection clause at this stage by arguing: (1) the inclusion of the clause in 

the agreement was the product of fraud or overreaching; (2) the selected forum is so gravely 

difficult and inconvenient that the complaining party would effectively be deprived of his 

day in court were the clause enforced; or (3) enforcement would contravene a strong public 

policy of the forum in which suit is brought. Holland Am. Line, Inc. v. Wartsila N. Am., 

Inc., 485 F.3d 450, 457 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted). Because the issues 

before this Court are limited to venue and the validity of the forum selection clause, the 

Court declines to address whether the entire contract is valid. However, Plaintiff also asserts 

that the forum selection clause should be invalidated because it was the product of fraud 

and would contravene California public policy. These arguments are discussed below. 

2. The Forum Selection Clause Is Not the Product of Fraud 

Plaintiff argues that the forum selection clause should not be enforced because the 

Terms are the product of fraud and she was fraudulently induced into entering into the 

agreement with Defendant. (Doc. # 33, pg. 16–22). Defendant counters that Plaintiff has 

Case 3:15-cv-00627-JAH-JMA Document 39 Filed 06/01/16 Page 8 of 12
9 

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

not properly alleged that the forum selection clause is fraudulent and invalid because 

Plaintiff failed to allege that the forum selection clause, as opposed to the entire Terms, 

were a product of fraud. (Doc. # 34, pg. 8–9). The Court agrees with Defendant and finds 

that Plaintiff failed to show that the inclusion of the forum selection clause was the product 

of fraud. 

In challenging a forum selection clause as fraudulent, a plaintiff must show that the 

forum selection clause itself, as opposed to the entire contract in which the clause is set 

forth, is the product of fraud or overreaching. See Scherk v. Alberto–Culver Co., 417 U.S. 

506, 519 n. 14 (1974) (stating that “[a] 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”). Here, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s inclusion of the forum selection clause 

in the Terms was part of Defendant’s scheme to perpetuate fraud on its customers. (Doc. 

# 33, pg. 16). However, Plaintiff has made no showing that the forum selection clause itself 

was included in the Terms through fraudulent means. Vague and conclusory assertions such 

as those proffered by Plaintiff in this action are insufficient to defeat a forum selection 

clause. See Pac. Health Advantage v. CAP Gemini Ernst & Young U.S. LLC, No. C 07–

1565, 2007 WL 1288385, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2007) (rejecting unsupported claim 

that forum selection clause was the product of fraud or overreaching); Democracy Council 

of Cal. v. WRN Ltd., PLC, No. CV 10–5088, 2010 WL 3834035, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 

27, 2010) (stating that “[plaintiff]’s general fraud allegation is not sufficient to nullify the 

forum selection clause and there is no evidence that the forum selection clause itself was 

inserted into the Agreement as a result of fraud, undue influence or overweening bargaining 

power”). Because Plaintiff failed to prove that the inclusion of the forum selection clause 

in the Terms was the product of fraud, the Court declines to find the clause unenforceable 

on that basis. 

3. The Forum Selection Clause Does Not Contravene California Public Policy 

Finally, Plaintiff contends that the forum selection clause is unenforceable because 

it contravenes California’s public policy of protecting citizen-consumers’ non-waivable 

Case 3:15-cv-00627-JAH-JMA Document 39 Filed 06/01/16 Page 9 of 12
10 

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

rights under the CLRA. (Doc. # 33, pg. 15–16). Although the Terms do no explicitly waive 

any rights under the CLRA, they contain a choice of law clause specifying that disputes 

related to the Terms shall be governed by Nevada state law. Thus, Plaintiff argues that, 

when construed together, the Terms’ forum selection and choice of law clauses “operate to 

waive Plaintiff’s rights under the CLRA.” (Doc. # 33, pg. 15). As support for her position, 

Plaintiff relies primarily on Doe 1 v. AOL LLC, 552 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Alternatively, Defendant asserts that Doe 1’s reasoning is flawed in light of Supreme Court 

authority and that a forum state’s policies should not dictate whether a forum selection 

clause is enforceable and a case transferrable under § 1404(a). (Doc. # 30-1, pg. 6–7; Doc. 

# 34, pg. 2–6). Neither party’s argument is persuasive. Nevertheless, the Court finds that, 

as applied to Defendant’s request to transfer the matter to Nevada district court, the forum 

selection clause does not contravene California public policy. 

In Doe 1, the Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit addressed the enforceability of 

a forum selection clause in an internet service provider’s contract designating the “courts of 

Virginia” as the proper forum for any disputes against the service provider and specifying 

Virginia law as the governing law. 552 F.3d at 1080. Internet service subscribers filed a class 

action lawsuit against the service provider in California district court alleging, in part, 

violations of the CLRA. Id. The internet service provider moved to dismiss the action for 

improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) or transfer venue under 28 

U.S.C. § 1406(a). Id. The district court granted the internet service provider’s motion to 

dismiss and held that the forum selection clause required the controversy to be adjudicated 

in Virginia. Id. at 1080–81. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed and found the forum 

selection clause unenforceable. Id. at 1084. 

The Ninth Circuit held that the forum selection clause violated California public 

policy and was unenforceable as to California residents bringing class action claims under 

the CLRA. Id. at 1084. The Ninth Circuit construed “courts of Virginia” to mean only 

Virginia’s state courts. Id. at 1082. The court then explained that California has a public 

policy of protecting its citizens’ consumer rights and remedies under the CLRA. Id. at 1082–

Case 3:15-cv-00627-JAH-JMA Document 39 Filed 06/01/16 Page 10 of 12
11 

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

84. The Ninth Circuit determined that enforcing the forum selection clause violated 

California public policy because consumer class actions were available under the CLRA, but 

not under Virginia law. Thus, requiring California plaintiffs to litigate in Virginia state court 

would cause the plaintiffs to forego their rights and remedies under the CLRA, including its 

anti-waiver provisions. Id. at 1084–85. 

Doe 1 is readily distinguishable from the present case. In Doe 1, the court’s decision 

was based on the conclusion that the California plaintiffs would not be able to pursue their 

claims as a class action if the forum selection clause was enforced. Id. at 1084. That is not 

the case here. Unlike the forum selection clause in the Doe 1, the Terms’ forum selection 

clause permits Plaintiff to pursue her claims in state or federal court, and Defendant seeks 

only to transfer to Nevada district court. Accordingly, Plaintiff remains free to pursue her 

claims on a class basis in Nevada district court in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23. See Madanat v. First Data Corp., No. C 10-4100, 2011 WL 208062, at *4 

(N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) (noting that Doe 1 did not foreclose application of forum 

selection clause where the plaintiff could pursue class action in transferee forum). 

Plaintiff’s argument rests on the assumption that if this case is transferred, then the 

District of Nevada will automatically enforce the Terms’ choice of law provision selecting 

Nevada law, thereby denying Plaintiff her rights as a California citizen under the CLRA. 

Plaintiff overlooks that the instant motion does not seek a choice of law determination. 

Rather, the resolution of which state’s laws apply is a separate issue for the Nevada district 

court to determine. See Besag v. Custom Decorators, Inc., No. CV 08–05463, 2009 WL 

330934, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb.10, 2009) (internal citations omitted) (rejecting the argument 

that enforcing a forum selection clause would contravene California public policy because 

it required speculation as to which law the transferee forum would ultimately apply and 

stating that “[a] forum selection clause determines where the case will be heard, [and] ... is 

‘separate and distinct from choice of law provisions that are not before the court’”); Mazzola 

v. Roomster Corp., No. CV 10–5954, 2010 WL 4916610, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2010) 

(“Plaintiff is free to pursue remedies in federal court in New York.... [O]nce in the proper 

Case 3:15-cv-00627-JAH-JMA Document 39 Filed 06/01/16 Page 11 of 12
12 

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

venue, Plaintiff is free to argue for application of California law”); accord Billing v. CSA–

Credit Solutions of Am., Inc., No. 10–cv–0108, 2010 WL 2542275, at *4 (S.D. Cal. June 

22, 2010); Sawyer v. Bill Me Later, Inc., No. CV 10-4461, 2011 WL 7718723, at *6–7 

(C.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2011); Gamayo v. Match.com LLC, Nos. C 11–00762 SBA, C 11–1076 

SBA, C 11–1206 SBA, 2011 WL 3739542, at*5–6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2011). 

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate how a transfer pursuant to a contractual forum selection 

clause and § 1404(a) would contravene an express California public policy underlying the 

CLRA. Transferring the matter to the District of Nevada does not foreclose Plaintiff’s ability 

to challenge the choice of law provision as she anticipates before this Court. Plaintiff is still 

free to raise the issue, and the district court in Nevada is fully competent to decide it. This 

Court’s failure to transfer would imply a concern that the district court in Nevada cannot 

properly evaluate the choice of law issue. Further, to allow plaintiffs to defeat contractual 

forum selection clauses simply by alleging a cause of action under the CLRA would render 

forum selection clauses largely devoid of purpose. Therefore, the Court finds that 

enforcement of the Terms’ forum selection clause is unrelated to its choice of law provision 

and does not contravene California public policy. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to 

Transfer Venue Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is GRANTED, and this action is 

TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Northern 

Division. 

Dated: June 1, 2016 

______________________________ 

 HON. JOHN A. HOUSTON 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-00627-JAH-JMA Document 39 Filed 06/01/16 Page 12 of 12