N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
PER SONNEL STAFFING GR OUP, LLC , DB A M VP Sta ffing, a

Florida lim ite d lia bility c om pa ny , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. PR OTEC TIVE INSUR

ANC E C OM PANY, a

n India na c orporation, De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 20-55503 D.C . No. 2:19-c v-06728-ODW -JEM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Otis D. W

right II, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

April 6, 2021 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER , WATFORD, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. Pe rsona l Sta ffing Group (“ PSG” ) sue d Prote c t ive Insura nc e C o. (“ Prote c tive ” ) in Los Ange le s Supe rior C o urt for bre a c h of c ontra c t. Prote c tive 

# FIL ED APR 15 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).re m ove d the a c tion to fe de ra l c ourt a nd the n file d

a m otion to dism

iss on forum
non c onv e nie ns grounds. Thedistric t c o urt c onc lude d tha t India na wa s a supe rior forum , gra

nte d the m o t ion, a

nd dismisse d the a c tion without pre j udic e . W e re ve rse . 1. PSG did not forfe it its a rgum e nt tha

t forum non c onv e nie ns dism issa l is
una va ila ble if tra nsfe r to a fe de ra l c ourt is possible . If the issue pre se nte d is

“ pure ly one of la

w a nd the opposing pa

rty will suffe r no pre

j udic e a s a

re sult of the fa ilure to ra ise the issue in the tria l c ourt,” we m ay tre at the argum e nt a s not forfe ite d. K

aass Law v . W e l l s Fargo Bank

, N .A. , 799 F.3d 1290, 1293 (9th C ir. 2015) (quota

tion m a rks a nd c ita tion omitte d). W e do so he re be c a use the
ava ila bility of forum non c onv e nie n s is a pure que stion of la w, a n d Prote c tive is not pre j udic e d by

PSG’ s fa ilure to ra ise the issue be fore the distric t c ourt. 2. Forum non c o nv e nie ns dism i ssa l is una va ila ble if tra nsfe r to a nothe r fe de ra l distric t c o urt is possible unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1404(a). Se eN orw ood v
. K irk patrick, 349 U.S. 29, 32 (1955) (tra nsfe r sta tute m e a nt to a void ha rsh re sult of dism issa l); Sinoc he m Int’l C o. Ltd. v . Malay

sia Int’l Shipping C

o. , 549 U.S. 422, 430 (2007) (“ For the fe de ra l c ourt sy ste m , C ongre s s ha s c odifie d the doc trine and ha s provide d for tra

nsfe r, rathe r tha

n dismi ssa l, whe n a

siste r fe de ra l c ourt is the

2m ore c onve nie nt pla c e for tria l of the a c tion.” ); C h arle s Ala n Wright & Arthur R
. M ille r, 15 Fe d. Prac . & Proc
. § 3841 (4th e d . Oc t. 2020 upda te ). Transfe r to fe de ra l distric t c o urt in India na wa s possible , a s the c ontra c t doe s not obliga

te the pa rtie s to litiga

te this a c tion in sta

te c ourt. The c ontra c t re quire s only tha t the pa rtie s submit to pe rsona l jurisdic tion in India n a ; it doe s not re quire that litiga tion bec onduc te d

in a pa rtic ula r forum
. S

e e Hunt W

e sson Foods, Inc . v . Supre m eOil C

o. , 817 F.2d 75, 77–78 (9th C ir. 1987); Doc k side r, Ltd. v . Se a Te c h., Ltd. , 875 F.2d 762, 763–64 (9th C ir. 1989) (m a ndatory forum se le c t ion c la

use re quire s the pa

rtie s to bring a

n a c tion in a

spe c ific forum , to thee xc l usion of other forum s). B e c a use tra nsfe r to India

na fe d e ra l c ourt wa s possible , the distric t c ourt
e rre d by dism issing the

a c tion. Ac c ordingly , we re ve rse and re m and to a l low a
se c t ion 1404(a) tra

nsfe r m otion to be

m a de
. RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.

3