IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

FOUNDATION FITNESS PRODUCTS, LLC,

an Oregon limited liability company,

Plaintiff,

v.

FreeMotion® FITNESS, a foreign corporation,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-cv-564-SB

Case No. 3:15-cv-565-SB

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

BECKERMAN, Magistrate Judge.

Presently before the Court are consolidated cases filed by Foundation Fitness Products

(“Foundation”). In the lead case (3:15-cv-564-SB), Foundation filed an Amended Complaint against

FreeMotion® Fitness (“FreeMotion”), alleging a claim for breach of contract and a claim for

declaratoryrelief, arising from an agreement entered into by the parties. Similarly, in the related case

(3:15-cv-565-SB), Foundation filed an Amended Complaint against FreeMotion alleging two claims

Page 1 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Case 3:15-cv-00564-SB Document 23 Filed 05/29/15 Page 1 of 14
for breach of contract and a claim for declaratoryrelief, arising from a second agreement. Foundation

filed both Amended Complaints in the Multnomah CountyCircuit Court of the State of Oregon, and

FreeMotion timely removed both actions to this Court.

After the cases were removed to federal court, the Court directed the Clerk to consolidate

cases 3:15-cv-00564-SB and 3:15-cv-00565-MO, and, pursuant to Local Rule 42-4,

3:15-cv-00564-SB was designated the lead case. The parties were directed to file all subsequent

pleadings, motions, and other case documents only in the lead case.

Two days later, FreeMotion filed a Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens, seeking

dismissal of both cases on the ground that litigation in this Court violates the forum-selection clauses

in the parties’ agreements. Foundation opposed the Motion, and filed a Motion for Leave to File

Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Oral argument was heard on both motions on May 28, 2015.

For the reasons set forth below, FreeMotion’s Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens

should be denied, and Foundation’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint should

be granted. 

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Foundation is an Oregon limited liability company engaged in the business of designing and

manufacturing indoor fitness bicycles, with a principal place of business in Portland, Oregon, and

related operations in Boulder, Colorado. FreeMotion is a Utah corporation that manufactures,

distributes, and sells fitness and exercise equipment, along with other health, wellness, and therapy

products. FreeMotion’s principal place of business is in Logan, Utah.

Page 2 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Case 3:15-cv-00564-SB Document 23 Filed 05/29/15 Page 2 of 14
The parties entered into multiple supply contracts, including one in 2010 and a second in

2012 (collectively, “Supply Contracts”). (Def.’s Mem. Dismiss Exs. A and B.)

1

In the Supply

Contracts, Foundation agreed to manufacture and supply to FreeMotion certain indoor cycling

bicycles and, in exchange, FreeMotion agreed to purchase a specified minimum number of those

bicycles.

Foundation alleges FreeMotion failed to pay as required under the Supply Contracts and,

consequently, on November 21, 2014, Foundation filed its original Complaint against FreeMotion

in the Multnomah CountyCircuit Court (Case No. 14CV17884). Three days later, on November 24,

2014, Foundation filed a second Complaint against FreeMotion in the same court (Case No.

14CV17925). Foundation never served these Complaints. Instead, in February 2015, Foundation

filed two Amended Complaints and, on March 20, 2015, served summons and the Amended

Complaints upon FreeMotion. Both Amended Complaints assert breach of contract claims and a

declaratory relief claim against FreeMotion, arising from the parties’ agreements. On April 6, 2015,

the Oregon cases were removed to this Court, and later consolidated.

On March 12, 2015, FreeMotion filed suit in the First Judicial District Court in and for Cache

County, State of Utah (Civil No. 150100130), alleging Foundation breached the Supply Contracts

and, alongwith a purported parent companyand two related companies, intentionally interfered with

FreeMotion’s performance of the SupplyContracts. (Def.’s Mem. Dismiss Ex. C (hereinafter “Utah

Complaint”).) Specifically, pursuant to the same agreements underlying the Oregon cases,

FreeMotion seeks relief against Foundation in Utah for the following causes of action under Utah

1

In deciding a motion to dismiss, the Court may consider documents attached to the

pleadings or referenced therein without converting the motion into one for summary judgment. Van

Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002).

Page 3 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Case 3:15-cv-00564-SB Document 23 Filed 05/29/15 Page 3 of 14
law: (a) breach of contract; (b) breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing; (c) declaratory

judgment; (d) intentional interference with economic relations; and (e) injunctive relief. (Utah

Compl. ¶¶ 48-68.)

Foundation removed the FreeMotion action to the U.S. District Court in Utah. Presently

pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (“Utah Federal Court”) is

FreeMotion’s motion to remand the case to the Utah state court. The issues raised in the present

motion, i.e., whether venue is vested exclusively in the First Judicial District of Cache County, Utah,

is also before the Utah Federal Court. (Pl.’s Opp. Ex. A.)

The Supply Contracts at issue in these cases contain the following clause:

19. Governing Law. This Agreement, and all matters relating hereto, including any

matter or dispute arising out of the Agreement, shall be interpreted, governed, and

enforced according to the laws of the State of Utah, and the parties hereto consent

to the jurisdiction of the First Judicial District Court of Cache County, State of

Utah, to resolve such disputes.

(Def’s Mem Dismiss Ex. A at 15-16; Ex. B at 16 (emphasis added).) The Supply Contracts attach

and incorporate other agreements between the parties, including “Purchase Order Terms” issued by

Icon Health and Fitness (“Purchase Order”), FreeMotion’s parent company, and a Supplier

Agreement Book (aka Vendor Compliance Manual) (“Supplier Agreement Book”). The Purchase

Orders contain this clause:

10. Governing Law and Jurisdiction. The Purchase Order and all forms and

conditions hereof shall be construed under the laws of the State of Utah, regardless

of place of acceptance. By acceptance of or shipment of goods under the Purchase

Order, [Foundation] expressly agrees to the exclusive jurisdiction of the

applicable courts of the State of Utah to resolve any dispute arising hereunder.

(Def.’s Mem. Dismiss Ex. A at 28; Ex. B at 28 (emphasis added).) In addition, the Supplier

Agreement Book contains this clause:

Page 4 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Case 3:15-cv-00564-SB Document 23 Filed 05/29/15 Page 4 of 14
15. Governing Law. This Agreement, and all matters relating hereto, including any

matter or dispute arising out of this Agreement, shall be interpreted, governed, and

enforced according to the laws of the State of Utah, and the parties hereto consent

to the exclusive jurisdiction ofthe First Judicial District Court of Cache County,

State of Utah, or to any federal court located in the State of Utah, to resolve

such disputes.

(Def.’s Mem. Dismiss Ex. A at 89 (emphasis added).)

The Supply Contracts also include the following clause:

8. FreeMotion Purchase Orders. Vendor and FreeMotion acknowledges and agrees

that the terms of FreeMotion’s purchase orders (as attached in Exhibit F), as from

time to time issued by FreeMotion and accepted by Vendor, constitute an integral

part of the agreement between FreeMotion and Vendor. Accordingly, any breach

by Vendor or FreeMotion of any one (1) or more of the terms of any purchase

orders to Vendor shall constitute a breach ofthe applicable Supplier Agreement

Book and this Agreement. To the extent the terms of this Agreement and

FreeMotion’s purchase orders orSupplierAgreementBook are inconsistent, the

terms of this Agreement shall govern. To the extent the terms of the Supplier

Agreement Book and FreeMotion’s purchase orders are inconsistent, the terms of

FreeMotion’s purchase orders shall govern. . . .

(Def.’s Mem. Dismiss Ex. A at 9: Ex. B at 10 (emphasis added) (referred to herein as the “trump”

clause).)

II. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens

1. Legal Standard

FreeMotion contends the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Atlantic Marine Construction

Co. v. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 568 (2013), sets

the new legal standard for forum non conveniens motions. In Atlantic Marine, the U.S. Supreme

Court clarified that the appropriate vehicle for enforcing a forum-selection clause in federal court

Page 5 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Case 3:15-cv-00564-SB Document 23 Filed 05/29/15 Page 5 of 14
is a motion to transfer venue, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).2

Id. at 579. The Court also recognized

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

weight in all but the most exceptional cases”(id. (quotation and citation omitted)), and that “[t]he

presence of a valid forum-selection clause requires district courts to adjust their usual § 1404(a)

analysis[.]” Id. at 580.

Having reviewed Atlantic Marine and its progeny, this Court concludes that the Supreme

Court’s “adjustments” to the traditional analysis of forum-selection clauses apply only where a

plaintiff has disregarded a contractually agreed-upon forum. 134 S. Ct. at 581 (“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.”). When, however, a forum-selection clause

is not mandatory, a majority of federal courts have rejected the analysis employed by the Supreme

Court in Atlantic Marine, and have instead applied the traditional analysis. See, e .g, Lavera Skin

Care North American, Inc. v. Laverana GMBH & Co. KG, No. 2:13-cv-2311-RSM; 2014 WL

7338739, *5 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 19, 2014) (cases cited therein); see also GDG Acquisitions, LLC v.

Gov’t of Belize, 749 F.3d 1024, 1029-30 (11th Cir. 2014) (remand for determination of whether

contract “contains amandatoryforum-selection clause” that would implicate AtlanticMarine);Taylor

v. Goodwin &Assoc. Hospitality Services, LLC, No. C 14–5098 KLS; 2014 WL 3965012, *3 (W.D.

Wash. Aug. 13, 2014) (applying analysis in Atlantic Marine only upon determining the forumselection clause was mandatory).

2 Consistent with the Supreme Court’s holding in Atlantic Marine, the Court reviews

FreeMotion’s Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens as a motion to transfer venue. 134 S.

Ct. at 580.

Page 6 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Case 3:15-cv-00564-SB Document 23 Filed 05/29/15 Page 6 of 14
2. The Parties’ Arguments

The parties do not dispute that the forum-selection clauses in the Purchase Order and the

Supplier Agreement Book are mandatory. (Def.’s Mem. Dismiss Ex. A at 28, 89; Ex. B at 28.)

Further, Foundation asserts, and FreeMotion accepted for the sake of oral argument only, that the

forum-selection clause in the Supply Contracts are not mandatory.

The parties stronglydisagree, however, about the legal effect of paragraph eight in the Supply

Contracts (the “trump” clause). The trump clause provides: “To the extent the terms of this

Agreement and FreeMotion’s purchase orders or Supplier Agreement Book are inconsistent, the

terms of this Agreement shall govern.” (Def.’s Mem. Dismiss Ex. A at 9: Ex. B at 10.) Foundation

argues that the forum-selection clauses in the Purchase Order and the Supplier Agreement Book

(mandatory forum-selection clauses) are inconsistent with the forum-selection clause in the Supply

Contracts (a permissive forum-selection clause), and that therefore the permissive clause in the

Supply Contracts must govern, pursuant to the trump clause. (Def.’s Mem. Dismiss Ex. A at 9: Ex.

B at 10.) FreeMotion, on the other hand, contends that the forum-selection clauses are not

inconsistent, that the trump clause is therefore never triggered, and that the Court should seek to

harmonize all clauses by enforcing the mandatoryforum-selection clauses in the Purchase Order and

the Supplier Agreement Book.

3. Analysis

There are two issues that the Court must answer to resolve FreeMotion’s request to transfer

venue to Utah. First, the Court must decide whether Foundation, through its agreements with

FreeMotion, agreed to bring suit only in Utah. In other words, the Court must determine if the

various forum-selection clauses at issue here are mandatory or permissive. If the Court finds there

Page 7 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Case 3:15-cv-00564-SB Document 23 Filed 05/29/15 Page 7 of 14
are both mandatory and permissive forum-selection clauses included within the parties’ agreements,

the Court must then decide whether the terms of the Supply Contracts govern pursuant to the trump

clause, or whether the Court should attempt to harmonize the competing forum-selection clauses.3

(a) Are the Forum-Selection Clauses Mandatory or Permissive? 

To interpret the forum-selection clauses, this Court, sitting in diversity, must apply federal

law, despite the Supply Contracts’ choice-of-law provisions selecting Utah law. See, e.g.,

Manetti–Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci Am. Inc., 858 F.2d 509, 513 (9th Cir. 1988) (“because enforcement

of a forum clause necessarily entails interpretation of the clause before it can be enforced, federal

law applies to interpretation of forum selection clauses”); Doe 1 v. AOL LLC, 552 F.3d 1077, 1081

(9th Cir. 2009) (“We apply federal law to the interpretation of the forum selection clause.”); Indoor

Billboard Northwest Inc. v. M2 Systems Corp., 922 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 1160 (D. Or. 2013) (“This

Court must followNinth Circuit law and, therefore, must interpret the forum-selection clause at issue 

here under federal common law without regard to the Promissory Note’s Connecticut choice-of-law

provision.”)

Under federal law, a mandatory forum-selection clause “clearly require[s] exclusive

jurisdiction.” Hunt Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Supreme Oil Co., 817 F.2d 75, 77 (9th Cir. 1987). To be

deemed mandatory (or “exclusive”), the language in the clause must require “that the designated

courts are the only ones which have jurisdiction.” Id. at 77-78. In contrast, a permissive clause sets

forth only “consent” to jurisdiction in a designated forum, but is not “exclusive,” i.e., the same

subject matter could be litigated in another court. Id. at 77; see also Docksider, Ltd. v. Sea

3 As a threshold matter, the Court notes that neither party contends that the forum-selection

clauses at issue are invalid or unenforceable. Additionally, neither party has challenged the personal

jurisdiction of this Court.

Page 8 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Case 3:15-cv-00564-SB Document 23 Filed 05/29/15 Page 8 of 14
Technology, Ltd., 875 F.2d 762, 764 (9th Cir. 1989) (“When only jurisdiction is specified the clause

will generally not be enforced without some further language indicating the parties’ intent to make

jurisdiction exclusive.”)

Consistent with Hunt Wesson and many other federal cases, the Court finds that the forumselection clauses in the Supply Contracts are clearly permissive. The language of those clauses is

similar to the version of the clause the Ninth Circuit found to be permissive in Hunt Wesson. In Hunt

Wesson, the forum-selection clause provided that the “courts of California, County of Orange, shall

have jurisdiction over the parties in any action at law relating to the subject matter or interpretation

of the contract.” Id. at 76. Similarly here, the forum-selection clause in the Supply Contracts

provides: “the parties hereto consent to the jurisdiction of” Utah courts. (Def.’s Mem. Ex. A 15-16;

Ex. B at 15.) Importantly, the forum selection-clause in the SupplyContracts uses the term “consent

to the jurisdiction,” rather than “shall have jurisdiction.” Pursuant to settled authority, the parties’

consent to jurisdiction in a given court does not preclude one of the parties from filing a complaint

in a different court. See id. at 77 (the language “mandates nothing more than that Orange County

courts have jurisdiction”).

In contrast, the forum-selection clauses in the Purchase Order (“expressly agrees to the

exclusive jurisdiction of the applicable courts of the State of Utah”), and in the Supplier Agreement

Book (“consent to the exclusive jurisdiction” of Utah courts), clearly provide for exclusive

jurisdiction in those courts. (Def.’s Mem. Ex. A at 28, 89; Ex. B at 28.) Accordingly, those forumselection clauses are mandatory. See Hunt Wesson, 817 F.2d at 77-78 (language in a mandatory

clause requires “the designated courts are the only ones which have jurisdiction”). If a dispute arose

Page 9 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Case 3:15-cv-00564-SB Document 23 Filed 05/29/15 Page 9 of 14
under those agreements only, the parties would be required to file their action in the designated

forum. 

In sum, the parties’ various agreements include both permissive (Supply Contracts) and

mandatory (Purchase Order and Supplier Agreement Book) forum-selection clauses.

(b) Are the Forum-Selection Clauses Inconsistent?

Foundation contends that the permissive forum-selection clause in the Supply Contracts is

inconsistent with the mandatory forum-selection clause in the Purchase Order and Supplier

Agreement Book. In the event of inconsistent terms, Foundation argues that the trump clause in the

Supply Contracts resolves the inconsistency in favor of the SupplyContracts’ term: “[t]o the extent

the terms of this Agreement and FreeMotion’s purchase orders or Supplier Agreement Book are

inconsistent, the terms of this Agreement shall govern.” (Def.’s Mem. Dismiss Ex. A at 9: Ex. B at

10.)

FreeMotion, on the other hand, characterizes the permissive and mandatory clauses as

complementary, rather than contradictory. FreeMotion argues that the trump clause is therefore not

triggered, and that the Court must enforce the mandatory forum-selection clause in the Purchase

Order and Supplier Agreement Book in an effort to harmonize all of the forum-selection clauses.

FreeMotion directs this Court to Summa Humma Enterprises, LLC v. Fisher Engineering,

No. 12-CV-367-LM, 2013 WL57042 (D.N.H. Jan. 3, 2013). In Summa Humma, the court reconciled

competing permissive and mandatory forum-selection clauses, despite a trump clause in the primary

contract. That court first noted its obligation to construe and harmonize both agreements in a manner

to avoid rendering any provision, in either document, meaningless. Id. at 5. Next, the court

determined that plaintiff’s submission to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts in

Page 10 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Case 3:15-cv-00564-SB Document 23 Filed 05/29/15 Page 10 of 14
Maine (mandatory clause), was not inconsistent with plaintiff consenting to personal jurisdiction in

Maine (permissive clause). Id. (“the latter is included within the former”). In that court’s view,

requiring plaintiff to honor the mandatory clause did not require it to give up any right it was granted

by the permissive clause. Id.

This Court does not agree with the Summa Humma analysis. In that case, the court

disregarded that a non-mandatory forum-selection clause grants a party the valuable right to file an

action in a venue of their choosing. Requiring a party to litigate in a mandatory forum is very much

inconsistent with the party’s negotiated right to select its own forum. Thus, this Court disagrees that

a permissive forum-selection clause in one contract is consistent with a mandatory forum-selection

clause in another contract.

The parties anticipated that certain terms in the Purchase Order and Supplier Agreement

Book might be inconsistent with the terms in the later-negotiated Supply Contracts, and therefore

negotiated the trump clause in each of the Supply Contracts: “To the extent the terms of this

Agreement and FreeMotion’s purchase orders or Supplier Agreement Book are inconsistent, the

terms of this Agreement shall govern.” (Def.’s Mem. Dismiss Ex. A at 9: Ex. B at 10.) The parties

bargained for the inclusion of the trump clause in the Supply Contracts, just as they bargained for

the non-mandatoryforum-selection clause in the SupplyContracts. The express, unambiguous terms

of the SupplyContracts require a conclusion that Foundation never gave up its right to litigate in the

venue of its choice. This Court will not alter the terms of the parties’ bargain.

FreeMotion’s concern that it will be required to litigate separately any dispute arising under

the Purchase Order, in light of the mandatory forum-selection clause in that agreement, is not

warranted. (Def.’s Reply 2.) The Supply Contracts expressly state that while the Purchase Order is

Page 11 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Case 3:15-cv-00564-SB Document 23 Filed 05/29/15 Page 11 of 14
an integral part of the contract, a breach of the Purchase Order “shall constitute a breach of . . . [the

Supply Contract.]” (Def.’s Mem. Dismiss Ex. A at 9.) Thus, while the Court may be required to

interpret the Purchase Order to aid in resolving this dispute, claims necessarily will arise under the

Supply Contracts even if they also constitute a breach of the Purchase Order. All of the claims

alleged to date may be litigated in this forum, pursuant to the terms of the Supply Contracts.

In sum, this Court finds there is a conflict between the non-mandatoryforum-selection clause

found in the Supply Contracts, and the mandatory forum-selection clauses found in the Purchase

Order and the Supplier Agreement Book. Pursuant to the negotiated trump clause in the Supply

Contracts, the non-mandatory forum-selection clause in the Supply Contracts controls. That clause

allows Foundation to litigate in its chosen forum.

In its Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens, FreeMotion seeks dismissal only on

the ground that the relevant forum-selection clauses require venue in Utah. FreeMotion does not

request dismissal, or a transfer of venue, pursuant to the traditional § 1404(a) factors. Nothing stated

herein shall prevent FreeMotion from filing a motion to transfer venue based upon the traditional

§ 1404(a) factors, if it deems such a motion appropriate.

For all of the reasons set forth herein, FreeMotion’s Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non

Conveniens should be denied. Consequently, FreeMotion’s request for an award of costs and

expenses incurred as a result of the present Motion should also be denied.

II. Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

Foundation has moved the Court for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. The

proposed SAC “unifies” the two Amended Complaints, includes additional allegations, claims, and

damages, and does not add any new parties.

Page 12 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Case 3:15-cv-00564-SB Document 23 Filed 05/29/15 Page 12 of 14
“[A] partymay amend its pleadings . . . [with] the court’s leave. The court should freely give

leave when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a). “The propriety of a motion for leave to

amend is generally determined by reference to several factors: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith; (3)

futility of amendment; and (4) prejudice to the opposing party.” Hurn v. Ret. Fund Trust of

Plumbing, Heating & Piping Indus., 648 F. 2d 1252, 1254 (9th Cir. 1981). “[T]his policy is to be 

applied with extreme liberality.” Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079

(9th Cir. 1990).

FreeMotion opposes the filing of a SAC only on the ground this case “should be dismissed,

without prejudice, so Foundation may assert its claims in currently pending litigation in Utah.”

(Def.’s Opp. 2.) FreeMotion does not argue, nor does the Court find, that any of the relevant factors

weigh against granting Foundation leave to amend. Thus, Foundation’s Motion for Leave to File a

Second Amended Complaint should be granted. 

III. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, FreeMotion’s Amended Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non

Conveniens (ECF No. 11) should be DENIED; and Foundation’s Motion for Leave to File Second

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 20) should be GRANTED.

///

///

///

///

///

///

Page 13 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Case 3:15-cv-00564-SB Document 23 Filed 05/29/15 Page 13 of 14
SCHEDULING ORDER

The Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any, are

due fourteen (14) days from service of the Findings and Recommendation. If no objections are filed,

then the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement on that date. If objections are filed,

then a response is due fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the objections. When the

response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings and Recommendation will go under

advisement.

Dated this 29th day of May, 2015.

 

STACIE F. BECKERMAN

United States Magistrate Judge

Page 14 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Case 3:15-cv-00564-SB Document 23 Filed 05/29/15 Page 14 of 14