N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
In re : 1250 OC EANSIDE PAR TNER S,

De btor,
1250 OC EANSIDE PAR TNER S, a Hawa ii limite d pa

rtne rship, Pla i ntiff - Appe lla

nt,
v. M AR YL GR OUP, INC .; SUN KONA FINANC E II, LLC , a De l aware lim i te d lia bility c om pa ny ; HOKULI’ A C OM M UNITY ASSOC IATION, INC ., a Hawa ii non-profit c orporat ion; HOKULI’ A PARK

AND C ULTUR

AL SITES ASSOC IATION, INC ., a Ha w a i i non-profit c orporat ion; PAULETTE K. KALEIKINI, a s Truste e of the No. 14-15146 D.C . No. 1:13-c v-00613-LEK-KSC
M EM O R ANDUM * 

# FIL ED

JUN 21 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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.No Ka

Hilina i O Ia lua Irre voc a ble Trust; JOHN DOES, 1-50; JANE DOES, 1-50; DOE C ORPOR ATIONS, 1-50; DOE PAR TNER SHIPS, 1-50,

De fe nda n ts - Appe lle e s.
Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii Le slie E . Koba

y a shi, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d June 17, 2016 ** Honolulu, Ha

wa ii B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge and C ALLAHAN a nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt 1250 Oc e anside Partne rs a ppe a ls a n orde r granting De fe nda nt-Appe lle e M ary l Group, Inc .’ s m otion to dism iss for im prope r ve nue . W e re ve rse . B e c a

u se the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the history

of the c a se , we ne e d not re c ount it he re . The distric t c ourt e rre d whe n it e nforc e d a purporte d forum se le c t ion c la use in a la nd sa le c ontra c t be twe e n the pa rtie s. Tha

t c la use a llowe d Oc e anside to judic ia lly fore c lose on “prope rty

c ove re d by

the M ortga ge ” in the e ve nt of a de fa ult by M ary l . Spe c ific a l ly

and c ritic a lly , the c ontra c t provide d tha t Oc e anside

** The pa

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

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). 2“ m ay

se e k to fore c lose on the prope rty . . . by a fore c losure a c tion file d

in the C irc uit C ourt of the Third C irc uit, Sta te of Ha wa ii[.] ” That c la

use , the distric t
c ourt he ld, pre ve nte d Oc e anside from bringing a

fore c losure a c t ion in Ha

wa ii’ s fe de ra l ba nkruptc y c ourt. W e e nforc e only

those forum se le c t ion c la use s tha t “ c onta in la

n gua g e tha

t
c le arly de signa te s a forum a s the e xc lusive one .” N . C al. Dist. C

ounc il of Labore rs
v . Pittsburgh-De

s Moine s Ste e l C o. , 69 F.3d 1034, 1037 (9th C ir. 1995). W e found
suc h la ngua ge la c k ing in N

o rthe rn C alifornia Distric t C

ounc il of Labore rs and in Hunt W e sson Foods, Inc . v . Supre me Oil C o. , 817 F.2d 75, 77 (9th C i r. 1987). Those c a s e s he ld pe rm issive forum se le c tion c l a

use s tha t provide d, re spe c tive ly , that an a ward “ sha ll be e nforc e a

ble by a pe tition”in a

C a lifornia

sta te c ourt, N

. C al. Dist. C

ounc il of Labore rs , 69 F.3d a t 1036; a n d tha t C a lifornia

sta te c ourts

“ sha ll ha ve jurisdic tion ove r the pa rtie s in a ny a c tion,” Hunt W

e s son , 817 F.2d a

t 76. Howe v e r, we “ have not tre ate d the se l e c tion of a spe c ific forum

a s e x c lusive of a ll othe r fora , unle ss the pa rtie s ha ve e xpre ssly

sta te d tha t it wa s.” Re ddam v

. K PMG LLP , 457 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th C ir. 2006), abrogate d on othe r grounds by Pow e r e x C orp. v . Re liant Ene rgy

Se rv s., Inc
. , 551 U.S. 224 (2007). Here , the purporte d forum

se le c tion c la

u se la c ks la

ngua ge c le arly

de signa t ing Ha wa ii’ s
3Third C irc uit a s the e x c lusive forum for Oc e anside ’ s fore c l osure . Se e Pe lle port Inv ’rs, Inc . v . Budc o Quality The atre s, Inc
. , 741 F.2d 273, 275 (9th C ir. 1984). The re fore , our c a se la

w dic tat e s tha

t it is not the

e xc lusive forum
. The distric t c ourt’ s c ontra ry c onc lusion wa s e rror. Ac c ordingly , we re ve rse . Give n our re solution of the issue s, we ne e d

not, a nd do not, re a c h a

ny othe r issue urge d by the pa rtie s.

RE V E RSE D.

4