Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00693/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00693-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eleanor Pratt
Plaintiff
Silversea Cruises, Ltd., Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELEANOR PRATT, Ph.D.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SILVERSEA CRUISES, LTD., INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-0693 SI

ORDER TRANSFERRING ACTION TO

THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF

FLORIDA

On July 8, 2005, the Court heard argument on defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue.

Having carefully considered the papers and pleadings on file, and the arguments of counsel, the Court hereby

DENIES the motion to dismiss, GRANTS plaintiff’salternative motionto transfer and TRANSFERS this action

to the Southern District of Florida.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff EleanorPratt is an 83-year old woman who allegesthat in March, 2004 she suffered a broken

hip, a torn ACL in her right knee, and severe ankle injuries when she fell on a cruise ship enroute from San

Diego to San Francisco. While the record is unclear, it appears that plaintiff resides and receives medical

treatment in San Diego. 

On February 15, 2005, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Northern District of California, located in San

Francisco, alleging diversity jurisdiction and pleading causes of action for negligence, premises liability, and

common carrier liability. The passenger cruise ticket contract that plaintiff purchased from defendant contained

a forum-selection clause that provides:

Case 3:05-cv-00693-SI Document 28 Filed 07/13/05 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1 Plaintiff contends that defendant’smotionis procedurally defective forfailing to name the FederalRule

relied upon. The Court finds thatthe motion was sufficiently specific to allow both the plaintiff and this Court

to comprehend the basis for the motion and to fairly address it.

2

Choice of Law/Place of Suit. It is agreed by and between You and the

Carrier that any and all disputes whatsoever arising under, in connection

with, or incident to this Ticket shall be litigated if at all, in and before the

federalcourt of competent jurisdiction in Broward County, in the State of

Flordia, U.S.A., and shall be tried by a court without jury.

On April 17, 2005, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint based on improper venue.

Defendant also raises objections to a letter submitted by plaintiff from one of her treating physicians on the

grounds thatsignificant portions ofthe letter are not admissible pursuant to Rule 7-5(b) of the Local Rules and

FederalRule ofCivil Procedure 56(e). Plaintiff opposes the motion to dismiss, contending that venue is proper

in this district, but requests, in the alternative, that the action be transferred to the Southern District of Florida

rather than dismissed.1 

LEGAL STANDARD

 The Court will treat a motion to dismiss based on a forum-selection clause as a FederalRule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for improper venue. See Argueta v. Banco Mexicano, S.A., 87 F.3d

320, 324 (9th Cir.1996). Once venue is challenged by the defendant, the plaintiff bears the burden of

establishingthat venue is proper. Deputy v. Long-TermDisability Plan ofSponsor Aventis Pharm., etal., 2002

WL 31655328, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2002) (citing Bartholomew v. Virginia Chiropractors Ass’n, 612

F.2d 812, 816 (4th Cir. 1979)). Under a Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss, the pleadings need not be accepted

as true, as would be required under a Rule 12(b)(6) analysis, and the court “may consider facts outside ofthe

pleadings." Richardson v. Lloyd’s of London, 135 F.3d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 1998); Argueta, 87 F.3d at 324

(citing CarnivalCruise Lines v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991)). Because a 12(b)(3) motion has a dramatic effect

onplaintiff’sforum choices, the trialcourt must “draw allreasonable inferencesin favor ofthe non-movingparty

and resolve all factual conflicts in favor of the non-moving party.” Murphy v. Schneider National, Inc., 362

F.3d 1133, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2003). Alternatively, the court may hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve

questions of credibility or disputed facts. Id. at 1139-40.

Forum-selection clauses are “prima facie valid and should not be set aside unless the party challenging

Case 3:05-cv-00693-SI Document 28 Filed 07/13/05 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

enforcement ofsuch a provision can show it is 'unreasonable’ under the circumstances." Argueta, 87 F.3d at

325 (quoting Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10, 92 S. Ct. 1907, 1913 (1972)). To establish

the unreasonableness of a forum-selection clause, the party challenging its validity has “the heavy burden” of

showing that trial in the chosen forum would effectively deny the party a meaningfulday in court. Argueta, 87

F.3d at 325. Specifically, a forum-selection clause is unreasonable if: (1) its incorporation into the contract

was the result of fraud, undue influence, or overweening bargaining power . . . (2) the selected forum is so

gravely difficult and inconvenient that the complaining party willfor all practicalpurposes be deprived ofits day

in court . . . or (3) enforcement ofthe clause would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which the

suit is brought.” Id.; Murphy v. Schneider Nat’l Inc., 362 F.3d 1133, 1140 (9th Cir. 2004). 

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that dismissal is appropriate because the passenger cruise ticket contract between

defendant and plaintiff contains a valid forum-selection clause that designates the federal court in Broward

County, Florida as the sole forum for resolution of disputes between the parties. Defendant also asserts that

plaintiff has failed to qualify for any of the exemptions to enforcement of the forum-selection clause. 

Plaintiff does not challenge the validity ofthe forum-selection clause, but contends thatshe qualifiesfor

two exceptions to the forum-selection rule. First, plaintiff argues that her health prevents her from traveling from

California to Florida and, therefore, enforcement ofthe forum-selection clause would be unreasonable because

it would effectively deprive her ofher dayincourt. Second, plaintiff argues that enforcement contravenes public

policy by depriving her ofher Seventh Amendment rights. Plaintiff also requests that if the Court finds thatthe

proper forum for this action is the Florida federal court, that it transfer the action to that court rather than

dismissing it.

1. Reasonableness of forum-selection clause

A. Inconvenience of the selected forum

Plaintiff argues that her physical disabilities prevent her from traveling to Florida and thus the forum

Case 3:05-cv-00693-SI Document 28 Filed 07/13/05 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

selection clause is unreasonable because it will deprive her of her day in court. Defendant argues that a

physical disability alone is insufficient to meet plaintiff’s heavy burden ofdemonstrating that the forum selection

clause is unreasonable. Defendant also asserts that even if the inability to travel due to physical limitations were

sufficient, plaintiff has failed to establish that her injuries are so severe as to prohibit travel, and notes thatwhile

plaintiff lives in San Diego, she has filed this action in San Francisco, more than 500 miles away. 

Plaintiff relies on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Murphy v. Schneider National, Inc., 362 F.3d 1133

(9th Cir. 2004), where the Court ofAppeals found that the plaintiff was entitled to an exception to enforcement

of a forum-selection clause. In Murphy, the plaintiff, a truck driver, sued his employer and another defendant

for injuries incurred while picking up a load in Kentucky. He sued in Oregon, his state of citizenship, and the

defendant sought to enforce a forum-selection clause in his employment contractrequiring venue in Wisconsin.

Murphy claimed both financial hardship and a physical disability that prevented him fromsitting forlong hours,

and he submitted an affidavit stating that he had been unable to work, that he and his wife lived on an estimated

$2,234 per month in disability payments, and that he could not afford to maintain the case ifthe venue was not

local. The defendant challenged the extent of plaintiff’s disability based on evidence from plaintiff’s medical

records. Id. at 1138. The Ninth Circuit held that, in the context of a Rule 12(b)(3) motion based on a forum

selection clause, a district court must draw all inferences and resolve all factual conflicts in favor of the nonmoving party, and in doing so, found that “the combination ofMurphy’s alleged financialtroubles and physical

limitations would bar him from litigating his claim.” Id. at 1143. 

The Ninth Circuit has not specifically addressed the enforceability of a forum selection clause where

a plaintiff alleges only a physicaldisability. However, Murphy and the weight of persuasive authority from this

district and other jurisdictions suggest that neither severe physical limitation nor economic hardship alone is

generally enough. In Walker v. CarnivalCruise Lines, 107 F. Supp. 2d 1135, 1142 (N.D. Cal. 2000), a court

ofthis district held that the plaintiffs’ combined severe physical handicaps and poverty supported retention of

jurisdiction. 107 F. Supp. 2d at 1142. In Walker, disabled passengers sued the cruise line and travel agents

under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and state law based on the alleged failure to provide

accessible accommodations. One plaintiff suffered from chronic progressive multiple sclerosis and had less than

$400 a month of discretionary income for a family of four; the other was a quadriplegic requiring immediate

Case 3:05-cv-00693-SI Document 28 Filed 07/13/05 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

It is noteworthy that the Walker court also found that, giventhe “larger Nationalinterest in eradicating

discrimination” against the disabled, enforcement of the forum-selection clause would contravene the “larger

national policy of promoting full and equal access to the legal system for civil rights plaintiffs.” Id. at 1143. 

5

restroom access at all times with less than $700 disposable income a month for a family of three. The court

found that enforcement ofthe forum-selection clause would force the families to make the “Hobson’s choice”

between foregoing basic necessities such as food and seeking redress for their civil rights, and that it was the

“degree, combination, or cumulative effect ofsevere physicalandeconomic disabilities”thatwarranted granting

an exception to plaintiffs. Id. at 1142 (emphasis in original).2 Other courts have enforced forum selection

clauses where a plaintiff claimed either physicalor financialhardship, but not both. See, e.g., Miller v. Regency

Maritime Corp., 834 F. Supp. 200, 202 (N.D. Fla. 1992) (upholding a forum-selection clause despite the

plaintiff’s claim thatshe was unable to travel due to a serious hip injury); Weiss v. Columbia Pictures Television

Inc., 801 F. Supp. 1276, 1279 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (holding that inconvenience or expense of traveling is not an

adequate reason to disturb the forum-selection clause); Talatala v. Nippon YusenKaisha, Corp., 974 F. Supp.

1321, 1325 (D. Haw. 1997) (finding plaintiff’s claim that he could not afford to litigate in the selected forum

unpersuasive and enforcing the forum-selection clause).

While the Court does not adopt a broad rule that a physical disability alone is never enough, it cannot

conclude from the facts here that this plaintiff will be deprived of her day in court. Plaintiff presents evidence

of her physical limitations in the form of a declaration from one of her treating physicians, Dr. Hacker, which

states that plaintiff’s injuries “will prevent her from traveling from San Diego to Florida because of her limited

mobility and continued pain.” Hacker Decl., attached to Pl.’s Mot. Dismiss. No other evidence in support of

the request for an exception is included in the record. Defendant argues that the letter from Dr. Hacker, who

last treated plaintiff over a year ago, is insufficient to support plaintiff’s contention of immobility, and that

portions of the declaration fromDr. Hacker are inadmissible. But even if the Court considers the declaration

and resolves all factual disputes over the severity of the disability in favor of plaintiff, it finds that she has still

failed to establish that the forum-selection clause is “so manifestly and gravely inconvenient” so as to make it

unreasonable. Bremen, 407 U.S. at 18. Here, unlike in Murphy, plaintiff alleges that her physical disability

makes her unable to travel, but she does not claim any financialhardship. To meet the heavy burden required

Case 3:05-cv-00693-SI Document 28 Filed 07/13/05 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

to overcome the presumption that a forum selection clause is valid, plaintiff mustshow that it is an impossibility

for her to try her case, not simply a less convenient or effective means of doing so. Financial stability enables

a plaintiff to secure appropriate means of travel and medical assistance unavailable to those facing extreme

poverty. Likewise, the availability of electronic filing and video and teleconferencing technology limitsthe need

for travel. In addition, in civil case, a plaintiff may pursue a claim without appearing in court in person. See

Effronv. Sun Line Cruises, Inc., 67 F.3d 7, 11 (2nd Cir. 1995) (holding that while plaintiff claimed that he was

physically disabled and that travel to a foreign venue was so expensive and difficult as to deprive him ofhis day

in court, “a plaintiff may have his ‘day in court’ without ever setting foot in a courtroom”).

Therefore, while this Court is sympathetic to plaintiff’s condition and the inconvenience of traveling to

Florida, plaintiff has not met the heavy burden of demonstrating that enforcement is so inconvenient that she

would effectively be deprived of her day in court.

B. Forum-selection and public policy

Plaintiff argues that enforcement of the forum-selection clause will contravene a strong public policy

because it is the public policy ofthe United States not to deprive any individual of a day in court. Plaintiff does

not assert that any other additional broad public policy underlies her claim, and the Court has found that

enforcement of the forum-selection clause does not deprive plaintiff of her day in court. Thus, enforcement

of the forum-selection clause does not contravene public policy.

2. Objections to Dr. Hacker’s declaration

Because the Court findsthat, even ifthe declaration fromDr. Hacker were admitted, plaintiff has failed

to establish the unreasonableness of the forum-selection clause, it does not reach defendant’s specific

objections.

3. Request to transfer

A district court, when reviewing a case filed in the wrong jurisdiction, may dismiss, or, if it is in the

Case 3:05-cv-00693-SI Document 28 Filed 07/13/05 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

7

interest of justice, transfer to the district in which the case could have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

When a Rule 12(b)(3) motion is granted on the basis of a forum-selection clause, transfer rather than dismissal

is in the interest of justice. California Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial, 4:165 (2005);

Davis Media Group, Inc. v. Best Western Int’l, 302 F. Supp. 2d 464, 470 (D. Md. 2004); DigitalEnvoy, Inc.

v. Google , Ind, 319 F. Supp. 2d 1377, 1379 (N.D. Ga. 2004). 

Accordingly, the Court TRANSFERS the action to the Southern District of Florida. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby DENIES defendant’s motion

to dismiss and TRANSFERS this action to Southern District of Florida. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00693-SI Document 28 Filed 07/13/05 Page 7 of 7