Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01424/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01424-1/pdf.json

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GOLDEN VALLEY GRAPE JUICE CASE NO. CV F 09-1424 LJO GSA

AND WINE, LLC,

ORDERONTHIRDPARTYDEFENDANT’S 

Plaintiff, MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

vs.

CENTRISYS CORPORATION, 

Defendants.

 /

CENTRISYS CORPORATION,

Third Party Plaintiff,

vs.

SEPARATOR TECHNOLOGY 

SOLUTIONS PTY LTD,

Third-Party Defendants.

 /

Third Party Defendant Separator Technology Solutions PTY Ltd. (“STS”) moves for change of

venue pursuant to a forum selection clause. Following the parties’ briefing the issue, the Court asked for

supplemental briefing from Centrisys Corporation and STS regarding the United Nations Convention

on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. STS filed its supplemental brief on December 22,

2009. Centrisys filed a supplemental brief on January 7, 2010. The motion for change of venue was

taken under submission pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). Having considered all of the supplemental

briefs, as well as the Court’s file, the Court issues the following order.

FACTUAL OVERVIEW

This dispute arises from a contractual agreement between plaintiff Golden Valley Grape Juice

and Wine, LLC (“Golden Valley”) and defendant Centrisys Corporation (“Centrisys”). On April 2,

2008, Golden Valley (a California LLC) purchased a STS200 centrifuge (the “centrifuge”) from

1

Case 1:09-cv-01424-LJO-SKO Document 37 Filed 01/22/10 Page 1 of 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

Centrisys, a Wisconsin Corporation, for use in Golden Valley’s grape juice applications. (Doc. 1,

Amended Complaint ¶5.) STS (an Australian business entity) manufactured the centrifuge and sold it

under a separate agreement to its then distributor, Centrisys. STS, generally, builds centrifuges and then

sells the centrifuges to other businesses for eventual sale in the stream of commerce to end users. (Doc.

16, Whittington Decl. ¶2.)

Afterinstallation of the centrifuge and startup in September 2008, the centrifuge did not perform

to specifications. (Doc. 1, Amended Complaint ¶7.) Golden Valley notified Centrisys of the nonconformity. According to the amended complaint, “[d]efendant and the manufacturer repeatedlyassured

Plaintiff that the problems would be cured.” (Doc. 1-2, Amended Complaint ¶8.) Golden Valley

eventually filed this action against Centrisys. Centrisys then filed a third party complaint against STS. 

Centrisys alleges claims against STS for: (1) indemnity, (2) contribution, and (3) declaratory relief.

STS argues that pursuant to the parties’ contract, STS and Centrisys agreed to resolve any

disputes in Australia. STS submits the “General Conditions” to the STS/Centrisys contract. STS argues

that when STS and Centrisys entered into their contract, the “General Conditions” were part of the

contract. In pertinent part, the “General Conditions” provide for forum selection in Victoria, Australia.

The forum selection clause states in its entirety: “Any dispute between the parties shall be finally settled

in accordance with laws of Victoria (the jurisdiction shall be the State of Victoria) or through arbitration

at STS P/L’s option.” (Doc. 23, Whittington Decl. Exh. 1, ¶14.) Centrisys, however, disputes that the

“General Conditions” was part of the parties’ contract. Centrisys offers evidence that the “General

1

Conditions” was neither attached to any correspondence nor agreed to be part of the contract. Thus,

The main individuals who provide evidentiary support for this motion are Christopher Mahoney, Ashley

1

Whittington and Thomas Junod. Christopher Mahoney is the Sales Director for Centrysis Corporation. (Doc. 22, Mahoney

Decl. ¶1.) Ashley Whittington is a shareholder and employee of STS who quoted the price and product to Centrisys for the

sale of the centrifuge to Golden Valley. (Doc. 16, Whittington Decl. 1.) Thomas Junod is former employee of Centrisys who

received the quote from Ashley Whittington for the Centrifuge. (Doc. 34, Junod Decl. ¶1.) He is the Centrisys employee

who made the presentation to Golden Valley for the centrifuge, in which he incorporated the price quote he received from

Whittington. (Doc. 34, Junod Decl. ¶¶2-3.) Mr. Whittington states that, “The general conditions of sale are part of every

contract that STS AU enters into,” and that “[He] personally included them with the contract when I sent it to Centrisys/Tom

Junod.” (Doc. 23, Whittington Decl. ¶12.) Mr. Mahoney, on the other hand, states that “Centrisys never consented to or

approved the general conditions of sale, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Ashley Whittington, previously filed

herein as Document 23.” (Doc. 30, Mahoney Decl. ¶2.) He states that he “personally looked through Centrisys’ corporate

records and could not locate any copy or record of the General Conditions submitted by Mr. Whittington.” (Doc. 30,

Mahoney Decl. ¶3.)

2

Case 1:09-cv-01424-LJO-SKO Document 37 Filed 01/22/10 Page 2 of 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

Centrisys’ position is that it never agreed to the General Conditions and thereby never agreed to the

forum selection clause. In short, Centrisys disputes the validity of the contract's clause naming Australia

as the forum.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Enforce Forum Selection Clause

A motion to enforce a forum selection clause is treated as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule

12(b)(3), but pleadings need not be accepted as true, and facts outside the pleadings may be considered.

Argueta v. Banco Mexicano, S.A., 87 F.3d 320, 325 (9 Cir. 1996). Forum selection clauses are th

increasingly used in international business. When included in freely negotiated commercial contracts,

they enhance certainty, allow parties to choose the regulation of their contract, and enable transaction

costs to be reflected accurately in the transaction price. See Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499

U.S. 585, 593-94, 111 S.Ct. 1522 (1991) (detailing economic advantages of forum selection clauses). 

The Ninth Circuit applies federal law to determine the enforceability of the forum selection clause. Doe

1 v. AOL, 552 F.3d at 1081. A forum selection clause is presumptively valid; the party seeking to avoid

a forum selection clause bears a “heavy burden” to establish a ground upon which we will conclude the

clause is unenforceable. Doe 1 v. AOL LLC, 552 F.3d 1077, 1083 (9 Cir. 2009); and forum selection th

clauses should be honored “absent some compelling and countervailing reason.” Bremen v. Zapata

Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 12, 92 S.Ct. 1907, 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972). The party challenging the clause

bears a “heavy burden of proof” and must “clearly show that enforcement would be unreasonable and

unjust, or that the clause was invalid for such reasons as fraud or over-reaching.” Bremen, 407 U.S. at

15, 92 S.Ct. 1907. The burden is on the party resisting enforcement to show that enforcement of the

clause would be unreasonable under the circumstances. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S.

585, 589. 

The court, however, must draw all reasonable inferences and resolve all factual conflicts in favor

of party opposing enforcement of the clause. Murphy v. Schneider Nat'l, Inc., 362 F.3d 1133,

1138–1139 (9th Cir. 2004) (the trial court must "draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the

non-moving party and resolve all factual conflicts in favor of the non-moving party.”) When the venue

facts are inextricably intertwined with the merits of the action, resolution of the venue issue is usually

3

Case 1:09-cv-01424-LJO-SKO Document 37 Filed 01/22/10 Page 3 of 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

deferred until trial. See Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology Assocs., Inc. 557 F.2d 1280, 1285 (9th

Cir. 1977) (discussing personal jurisdiction motions).

B. United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods

The disputes in this case arise out of an agreement for a sale of goods from an Australian party

to a United States party. Such international sales contracts are ordinarily governed by a multilateral

treaty, the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”). 

Chateau Des Charmes Wines LTD v. Sabate USA, Inc., 328 F.3d 528, 530 (9th Cir.2003) (stating that

because the President submitted the CISG to the United States Senate, which ratified it, the CISG is

valid and binding federal law). CISG applies to “contracts of sale of goods between parties whose

places of business are in different States ... when the States are Contracting States.” CISG, Art. 1(1)(a),

15 U.S.C.App., 52 Fed.Reg. 6262 (March 2, 1987). The CISG governs contracts for the sale of goods

between parties whose places of business are in different nations, if the nations are Contracting States,

unless the subject contract contains a choice-of-law provision. See CISG, Art. 1, 6. 

The CISG governs only the formation of the contract of sale, and the rights and obligations of

the seller and the buyer arising from such a contract. See CISG, Art. 4. Under the CISG, a contract may

be oral or in writing. CISG, Art.11(“A contract of sale need not be concluded in or evidenced bywriting

and is not subject to any other requirement as to form. It may be proved by any means, including

witnesses.”) The CISG also addresses contract offer and acceptance. A proposal is an offer if it is

sufficiently definite to “indicate[ ] the goods and expressly or implicitly fix[ ] or make[ ] provision for

determining the quantity and the price,” CISG, Art. 14. An offer is accepted if the offeree makes a

“statement ... or other conduct ... indicating assent to an offer.” CISG, Art. 18. “A contract is concluded

at the moment when an acceptance of an offer becomes effective.” CISG, Art. 23. 

Here, STS and Centrisys acknowledge that the United States and Australia are signatories to the

CISG. They agree that their contract is governed by the CISG. Thus, the CISG governs the substantive

question of contract formation, including whether the forum selection clause was part of the parties’

agreement.

C. The Forum Selection Clause is Part of the Parties’ Agreement

The Court must first determine whether the forum selection clause was part of the contract,

4

Case 1:09-cv-01424-LJO-SKO Document 37 Filed 01/22/10 Page 4 of 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

pursuant to the CISG, taking into account its articles and any pertinent precedent.

Centrisys does not dispute that the parties had a contract for the sale of the centrifuge to

Centrisys. Centrisys argues that the General Conditions to the contract was not part of the contract

because Centrisys never consented to or approved the General Conditions of Sale. (Doc. 35,

Supplemental Brief; Doc. 30, Mahoney Decl. ¶2.)

1. The Offer

STS’ offer was contained in the February 29, 2008 sales quote to Thomas Junod, of Centrisys. 

In an email dated February 29, 2008, STS sent, and Centrisys received, a sales quote for the sale of the

STS200 centrifuge to Centrisys. (Doc. 22, Mahoney Decl. ¶5, Exh. “A”.) Under the CISG, this sales

quote was sufficient to constitute an offer. A proposal is an offer if it is sufficiently definite to “indicate[

] the goods and expressly or implicitly fix[ ] or make[ ] provision for determining the quantity and the

price,” CISG, Art. 14. The sales quote identified the goods for sale, the quantity of goods and the price. 

Thus, the offer for the sale of the centrifuge was contained in the February 29, 2008 emailed sales quote. 

Under the CISG, an adequate offer was made. 

The same email to Centrisys included the General Conditions. According to Mr. Whittington,

this email “attached” the General Conditions. The February 29, 2008 email consisted of the sales quote,

with an attachment for the General Conditions, another attachment for the Warranty and another

attachment for banking information. (See Doc. 33, Whittington Decl. Exh. 2.) The email to Thomas

Junod contained four attachments. Thus, the email to Tom Junod not only included the sales quote to

Tom Junod, but also attached the General Conditions in the same email. STS’ offer included, not just

the sales quote, but also the attachments to the email because all of the terms were offered at the same

time. The General Conditions were part of STS’ offer.

/////

2. The Acceptance

Under the CISG, conduct is adequate acceptance. “Conduct of the offeree indicating assent to

an offer is an acceptance.” CISG, Art. 18 (1). After receiving the sales quote, Centrisys then

incorporated the STS quote into its presentation to Golden Valley. (Doc. 33, Whittington Decl. Exh.

5.) In a March 6, 2008 email correspondence between Tom Junod of Centrisys and Gerald Homolka,

5

Case 1:09-cv-01424-LJO-SKO Document 37 Filed 01/22/10 Page 5 of 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

of Golden Valley, Centrisys proposed the purchase of the centrifuge. Golden Valley ultimately entered

into a contract on April 2, 2008 with Centrisys to purchase the centrifuge. (Doc. 1, Complaint ¶5.) 

Centrisys ordered the centrifuge and it was delivered to Golden Valley. Thus, the terms of STS’ offer

were accepted because Centrisys sold the centrifuge to Golden Valley. See CISG, Art. 19 (“the offeree

may indicate assent by performing an act, such as one relating to the dispatch of the goods or payment

of the price, without notice to the offeror, the acceptance is effective at the moment the act is

performed.”)

Centrisys argues that the mere receipt of the General Conditions is not enough to accept the

conditions. Centrisys argues that it did not “accept” the terms of the General Conditions because it did

not affirmatively agree to the General Conditions. (Doc. 35 Supplemental Brief p.3.) Centrisys argues

that a unilateral attempt to impose the conditions is insufficient, citing Chateau Des Charmes Wines,

Ltd. v. Whitehall Specialties, Inc., 328 F.3d 528 (9 Cir. 2003). th 2

Chateau Des Charmes Wines, however, is distinguishable on its facts. In Chateau Des Charmes

Wines, the forum selection clause was not part of the parties’ agreement and the court addressed the issue

of whether later invoices containing a forum selection clause modified an oral sales contract under the

CISG. The parties in Chateau Des Charmes Wines had orally agreed to the goods, the quantity and the

price, which created a binding contract under the CISC. The facts showed that the parties agreed, in two

telephone calls, to a purchase of the goods. The parties agreed on payment and shipping terms, and no

other terms were discussed in their telephone calls. Later, when the goods were shipped, the defendant

included invoices that contained the forum selection clause. The Defendant argued that the clauses in

the invoices became part of the binding agreement. The Ninth Circuit disagreed stating that the terms

of the parties’ oral agreement did not include the forum selection clause. “We reject the contention that

because Sabaté France sent multiple invoices it created an agreement as to the proper forum with

Chateau des Charmes. The parties agreed in two telephone calls to a purchase of corks to be shipped in

Centrisys also argues that Thomas Junod did not have authority to accept the General Conditions. This is not a

2

reasonable inference from the evidence before the Court. Mr. Junod was the negotiator between STS and Centrisys and

between Centrisys and Golden Valley. He was the contact point for both STS and for Golden Valley, including presenting

Centrisys’ offer to Golden Valley. Golden Valley’s Purchase Agreement, for the purchase of the centrifuge, was addressed

to Mr. Junod. (Doc. 1, Complaint Exh. thereto.) In addition, he apparently signed the Purchase Agreement on behalf of

Centrisys. Id.

6

Case 1:09-cv-01424-LJO-SKO Document 37 Filed 01/22/10 Page 6 of 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

eleven batches.” Chateau Des Charmes Wines, 328 F.3d at 531. The parties’ contract had been formed

in the telephone calls and the court viewed the later invoices as an attempt to modify the contract. The

court held that the agreement had not been modified bythe later-sent invoices which contained the forum

selection clause. The Ninth Circuit held the CISG does not allow for the modification of a contract by

one party failing to object to the other party's unilateral attempt to modify its terms. Id. at 531. Thus, in

Chateau Des Charmes Wines, the defendant sought to add, unilaterally, the forum selection clause after

the parties had formed their agreement. 

Similarly, in Solae, LLC v. HersheyCanada, Inc., 557 F. Supp. 2d 452 (D. Del. 2008), also cited

by Centrisys, the parties negotiated a contract, but the parties did not mention the seller's Conditions of

Sale during their negotiations. The buyer was allegedly familiar with them from past dealings. Pursuant

to the agreement, the buyer faxed the seller a purchase order, and the seller sent an order confirmation

before delivery that referred to its Conditions of Sale, but did not contain them. The seller sent the buyer

an invoice after shipment that contained its Conditions of Sale, including a forum selection clause. The

court held that the parties had formed a completed contract when the companies reached an agreement

on the price, quantity, and freight terms. The contract, at formation, did not include a forum selection

clause. 

Here, however, the General Conditions accompanied the sales quote. The General Conditions

were attached, contemporaneously, with the sales quote and with other sale information, such as

warranty information and banking information, which were included in the email. Unlike Chateau and

Solae, the General Conditions were not sought to be imposed after the contract had been formed. The

General Conditions were part of the offer. Indeed, it is without dispute that Centrisys reviewed at least

one other attachment in the same email - the warranty. (See e.g., Doc. 33, Whittington Decl. ¶16 and

Exh. 2.) Throughout the proceedings in this Court, Centrisys has alerted the Court to the warranty

provided by STS as a means of establishing STS’ “minimum contacts” with California. (See Doc. 20,

Centrisys opposition to Motion to Dismiss p. 9.) Thus, some of the attachments to the February 29, 2008

email were reviewed byCentrisys. See CFMOTO Powersports Inc. v. NNR Global Logistics USA, Inc., 

2009 WL 4730330, 3 (D.Minn. 2009) (Although Mirman now asserts that he did not receive any terms

and conditions when he signed the Customs POA, that after-the-fact assertion directly contradicts the

7

Case 1:09-cv-01424-LJO-SKO Document 37 Filed 01/22/10 Page 7 of 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

evidence in the record.)

Pursuant to the CISG, acceptance does not require a signature or formalistic adoption of the

offered terms. Pursuant to Art. 18(3), “the offeree may indicate assent by performing an act, such as one

relating to the dispatch of the goods or payment of the price, without notice to the offeror, the acceptance

is effective at the moment the act is performed.” The evidence establishes that at the time STS sent its

sales quote to Centrisys, it contemporaneously sent its General Conditions as part of the attachments. 

By adopting the terms of the sales quote, Centrisys accepted the terms upon which the centrifuge had

been offered, including the General Conditions. Thus, Centrisys accepted the General Conditions.

D. Policy Reasons for not Enforcing the Forum Selection Clause

While the Supreme Court in Bremen created a presumption in favor of enforcing forum selection

clauses, Bremen also recognized three reasons that would make enforcement of a forum selection clause

unreasonable: (1) “if the inclusion of the clause in the agreement was the product of fraud or

overreaching”; (2) “if the party wishing to repudiate the clause would effectively be deprived of his day

in court were the clause enforced”; and (3) “if enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of

the forum in which suit is brought.” Richards v. Lloyd's of London, 1294 (9th Cir.1998) (citing and

quoting Bremen, 407 U.S. at 12-13, 15, 18, 92 S.Ct. 1907) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, Centrisys does not argue that it was the victim of either fraud or overreaching. The parties

negotiated their agreement at arms length. Likewise, Centrisys does not argue the enforcement of the

forum selection clause would violate public policy.

Centrisys argues that enforcement of the forum selection clause would deny Centrisys its day in

Court. Centrisys argues that to prove its claims of indemnity and contribution, Centrisys “would need

to call upon Golden Valley employees who are not subject to the jurisdiction of Australian courts.” 

(Doc. 35, Supplemental Brief p.9.) In addition, Centrisys would be forced to twice litigate whether the

STS centrifuge was nonconforming/defective.

Where inconvenience of the forum was foreseeable at the time of contracting, then "the party

seeking to escape his contract"must show "that trial in the contractual forum will be so gravely difficult

and inconvenient that he will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court.” Bremen, 407

U.S. at 18 (emphasis added); see Murphy v. Schneider National, Inc., 362 F.3d 1133, 1140 (9th Cir.

8

Case 1:09-cv-01424-LJO-SKO Document 37 Filed 01/22/10 Page 8 of 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

2004) (courts are to consider a party's financial ability to litigate in the forum selected by the contract

when determining the reasonableness of enforcing a forum selection clause.) The cost of litigation or

the fact that a foreign forum poses inconvenience does not prevent enforcement of a forum-selection

clause. Fireman's Fund InsuranceCompany v. M.V. DSR Atlantic, 131 F.3d 1336, 1339 (9th Cir.1997).

Here, the Court acknowledges that Centrisys will be inconvenienced by the forum selection

clause. The witnesses that Centrisys may need from Golden Valley to prove the centrifuge was

nonconforming are located in California. The forum is distant and whether the centrifuge is conforming

may need to be tried a second time. Nonetheless, these inconveniences are not shown to be “so gravely

difficult and inconvenient” as to deny Centrisys its day in court. For instance, there may be other

witnesses within Centrisys or experts who could provide sufficient testimony, and some or all of the

evidence may be stipulated, the product of a video deposition, or subject to judicial notice. If Centrisys

prevails against Golden Valley, it may be unnecessary to pursue the matter further. Centrisys simply

argues that it will be inconvenienced by not having all witnesses available and may be forced to relitigate the issues again. These arguments are not sufficient to carry the burden that the enforcement of

the forum selection clause is unreasonable.

E. Paragraph 10 of the General Conditions re “Product Liability”

Centrisys argues that if the General Conditions apply, then paragraph 10 “Product Liability”

controls the choice of forum. Centrisys argues that if someone other than STS and Centrisys brings a

claim for damages based on a defective product theory of liability, both STS and Centrisys are required

to make themselves available to the forum selected by the third party. (Doc. 35, Supplemental Brief p.

9-10.) Centrisys argues that since Golden Valley sued Centrisys for a product defect, STS is required

to defend in California.

/////

Paragraph 10 of the General Conditions states:

10. Product Liability

STS P/L shall be liable for personal injury only if it is proved that such injury was caused

by reason of errors or omission on the part of STS P/L or others for whom STS P/L is

responsible. Damages for person injury shall never exceed the level of damages in force

according to the stipulations of Australian law. . . .

9

Case 1:09-cv-01424-LJO-SKO Document 37 Filed 01/22/10 Page 9 of 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

To the extend that STS P/L might incur product liability towards any third party, the

Purchaser shall indemnify STS P/L for liability exceeding the limitations in these

General Conditions. If a claim for damages is lodged by a third party according to this

clause against one of the parties, this party shall forthwith inform the other of such claim

in writing. STS P/L and the Purchaser shall be mutually obliged to let themselves be

summoned to the court examining claims for damages lodged against one of them on the

basis of a damage allegedly caused by the goods delivered.

“Contract terms are to be given their ordinary meaning, and when the terms of a contract are

clear, the intent of the parties must be ascertained from the contract itself. Whenever possible, the plain

language of the contract should be considered first.” Doe 1 v. AOL, 552 F.3d at 1081.; see also Klamath

Water Users ProtectiveAss'n v. Patterson, 204 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir.1999). The common or normal

meaning of language will be given to the words of a contract unless circumstances show that in a

particular case a special meaning should be attached to it.” Doe 1 v. AOL, 552 F.3d at 1081.

Here, Paragraph 10 does not apply to this action. Paragraph 10 involves the parties’ obligations

for claims from third parties for personal injuries for “product liability.” A “product liability action” is

defined under California law, as “any action for injury or death caused by a product, except that the term

does not include an action based on a manufacturing defect or breach of an express warranty.”

Cal.Civ.Code § 1714.45(c). Neither Centrisys’ action nor Golden Valley’s action involve an action for 3

injury or death caused by the product. The action involves damages for failure of the product to perform

according to specifications and the warranty. Accordingly, the action does not involve a “product

liability.” Paragraph 10 of the General Conditions does not apply to this action. 

F. Equitable Contribution and Equitable Indemnity

Centrisys argues that the third party complaint is not premised on any contractual obligation

owed Centrisys by STS arising out of the parties’ agreement. Centrisys argues that it claims equitable

indemnity and contribution, which are not claims “on the contract.” (Doc. 35, Supplemental Brief p.3.) 

Since its claims are not “on the contract,” the forum selection clause is not invoked.

“[A] party to a joint, or joint and several obligation who satisfies more than his share of the claim

against all, mayrequire a proportionate contribution from all the parties joined with him.” Cal. Civ.Code

The Court does not make a finding that California law applies in this case. The Court notes that the General

3

Conditions contain a choice-of-law provision in which Australian law is chosen. Australian law has not been provided to the

Court. For purposes of the “product liability” issue only, the Court applies California law.

10

Case 1:09-cv-01424-LJO-SKO Document 37 Filed 01/22/10 Page 10 of 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

§ 1432; see HCC Life Ins. Co. v. Managed Ben. Adm'rs LLC, 2008 WL 2439665, 4 (E.D.Cal. 2008). 

An equitable contribution claim arises not from contract but from equity. Crowley Mar. Corp. v. Boston

Old Colony Ins. Co., 158 Cal.App.4th 1061, 1066, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 605 (2008). The right to equitable

contribution does not require a preexisting contractual relationship. Crowley, 158 Cal.App.4th at 1066,

70 Cal.Rptr.3d 605. The doctrine of equitable indemnification permits liability to be apportioned based

on the relative culpability of wrongdoers. Miller v. Ellis, 103 Cal.App.4th 373, 379, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d

667 (2002). Equitable indemnification “is premised upon the principle that ... joint tortfeasors should

share the burden of discharging the legal obligation to the injured party for the damages caused by their

mutual negligence.” Id. at 379-80, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 667 (emphasis added). As a condition of equitable

indemnity, there must be some basis for tort liability against the proposed indemnitor, usually involving

breach of a duty owed to the plaintiff. Stonegate Homeowners Ass'n v. Staben, 144 Cal.App.4th 740,

751, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 709 (2nd Dist.2006).

The Court need not reach Centrisys’ argument, because the forum selection clause is broadly

worded. The clause states, “[a]ny dispute between the parties shall be finally settled . . .” (Doc. 23,

Whittington Decl. Exh. 1, ¶14.) The clause is not limited to any dispute arising solely from the contract. 

The clause pertains to “any dispute.” The parties here are involved in a contractual relationship. Their

dispute arises from the contract, because ‘but for” their contractual relationship, there would not be a

dispute. Without the dispute, the parties would not need to select a forum. Accordingly, no matter what

terminology Centrisys applies to the dispute, it arises out of the parties’ contractual relationship. Thus,

forum selection clause is invoked.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss for change of venue by Third Party Defendant

Separator Technology Solutions PTY Ltd. is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11

Case 1:09-cv-01424-LJO-SKO Document 37 Filed 01/22/10 Page 11 of 11