1

19cv2058-JAH (WVG)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COMPOUND SOLUTIONS, INC., a 

California Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

COREFX INGREDIENTS, LLC, a 

Delaware Limited Liability Company; 

DOES 1-10,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19cv2058-JAH (WVG)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

TRANSFER AND DENYING AS 

MOOT MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. 

Nos. 10, 12]

INTRODUCTION

Pending before the Court are Defendant CoreFX Ingredients, LLC’s (“CoreFx”)

motions to transfer venue and motion to dismiss. See Doc. Nos. 10, 12. Having carefully 

considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, the record in this case, and for the 

reasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to transfer and DENIES 

AS MOOT CoreFx’s motion to dismiss.

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff, Compound Solutions, Inc. (“CSI” or “Plaintiff”), is an ingredient company 

that sources and sells ingredients for use in dietary supplements and foods. Doc. No. 15-1

(Declaration of Matthew Titlow) at 2. CoreFX is a manufacturer specializing in the 

Case: 1:20-cv-03937 Document #: 19 Filed: 07/06/20 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:302
2

19cv2058-JAH (WVG)

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

production of dry dairy and lipid ingredients. Doc. No. 10 at 7. In 2017, CSI began ordering 

products from CoreFX. Doc. No. 15 at 8. Between 2018 and 2019, CSI entered into a series 

of contracts with CoreFX for the continued purchase of ingredient products. Id. CSI and 

CoreFX followed the following course of dealings: (1) CSI would contact CoreFX 

regarding ingredients needed for CSI’s resale; (2) CoreFX would provide a specification 

sheet to CSI regarding the needed ingredients; (3) the parties would discuss the ingredients, 

pricing, and shipping details; (4) CSI would submit a purchase order to CoreFX; (5) 

CoreFX would accept CSI’s offer; (6) CoreFX would send a Certificate(s) of Analysis

(“COA”) along with a Sales Order (“Sales Orders”); (7) CoreFX would send CSI a release 

of the shipment with anticipated shipping/delivery dates and would ship the ingredients to 

CSI; (8) CoreFX would issue and invoice; and (9) CSI would issue payment. Doc. No. 15 

at 9. 

The Sales Orders agreed upon between the parties contained a separate document

thereto CoreFX’s Terms and Conditions, (“Terms and Conditions”) to which the parties 

agreed to be bound. Doc. Nos. 10 at 2; 1-2 (Exh. H) at 18. The Terms and Conditions listed 

several provisions governing any dispute or claim(s) arising from or relating to an alleged 

breach of the parties’ agreements. Doc. No. 10 at 8. Although the Terms and Conditions 

were provided by CoreFX to CSI upon each transaction, CSI was free to object to any of 

the Terms and Conditions in writing. Id. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions, the parties 

agreed to a provision entitled “Applicable Law; Consent to Jurisdiction and Venue” (the 

“Forum Selection Clause”). Specifically, the provision provides:

Buyer [CSI] hereby consents to the exclusive jurisdiction in the state and federal 

courts in the State of Illinois and to venue where Seller’s [CoreFX] offices are 

located with respect to all disputes concerning the subject matter of this Order 

Acknowledgment. 

Doc. No. 1-2 (Ex. H) at 18. By accepting the Sales Orders, CSI agreed to comply and be 

bound by the Terms and Conditions, including the Forum Selection Clause. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03937 Document #: 19 Filed: 07/06/20 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:303
3

19cv2058-JAH (WVG)

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

On October 25, 2019, CSI filed the instant action against CoreFX in the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of California. Doc. No. 1. CSI alleges to have 

received nonconforming goods from CoreFX in four transactions. Id. CSI asserts the 

following claims against CoreFX: violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law 

(“UCL”); violation of the False Advertising Law (“FAL”); common law negligence; 

common law fraud; breach of contract; breach of express warranty; breach of implied 

warranty of merchantability; breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; 

and declaratory relief that the disclaimer and the Terms & Conditions are Unconscionable 

and Unenforceable. Id. at 9-18. On December 2, 2019, CoreFx filed a motion to change 

venue to the Northern District of Illinois, pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code, 

section 1404(a). See Doc. No. 10. On December 5, 2019, CoreFx filed a motion to dismiss 

CSI’s complaint for failure to state a claim. See Doc. No. 12. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Title 28 of the United States Code, section 1404(a) provides that “[f]or the 

convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may 

transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The purpose of § 1404(a) “is to prevent the waste ‘of time, energy 

and money’ and ‘to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary 

inconvenience and expense.’” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964). A district 

court considering a § 1404(a) motion must “decide on whether, on balance, a transfer 

would serve the convenience of parties and witnesses and otherwise promote the interest 

of justice.” Atl. Marine const. Co., Inc., v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Tex., 134. S. Ct. 

568, 581 (2013) (internal quotations omitted). The burden is on the moving party to show 

that transfer is appropriate. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Savage, 611 F.2d 

270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979). 

However, “[t]he presence of a forum selection clause . . . will be a significant factor 

that figures centrally in the district court’s calculus.” Stewart Org. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 

22, 29 (1998). A valid forum selection clause is “enforced through a motion to transfer 

Case: 1:20-cv-03937 Document #: 19 Filed: 07/06/20 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:304
4

19cv2058-JAH (WVG)

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

under § 1404(a).” Atl. Marine Const. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court For W. Dist of Tex., 571 

U.S. 49, 59 (2013). Where a valid forum selection clause preselects an alternative forum 

than the one selected by the plaintiff, the § 1404(a) analysis alters in three ways: (1) the 

plaintiff’s choice of forum “merits no weight,” and the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show 

why the action should not be transferred to the preselected forum; (2) the court “must deem 

the private-interest factors to weigh entirely in favor of the preselected forum”; and (3) a § 

1404(a) transfer of venue “will not carry with it the original venue’s choice-of-law rules.” 

Id. at 582. A court may consider public interest factors, but such factors will rarely defeat 

a motion to transfer in face of a valid, applicable forum selection clause. Yei A. Sun v. 

Advanced China Healthcare, Inc., 901 F.3d 1081, 1088 (9th Cir. 2018). 

DISCUSSION

A. UCC 2-207 Does Not Render the Terms and Conditions Invalid

CSI alleges the Terms and Conditions provided by CoreFx are invalid pursuant to 

the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) 2-207. Doc. No. 15 at 12. UCC 2-207 “governs 

contracts between merchants who have exchanged conflicting forms.” Shany Co. v. Crain 

Walnut Shelling, Inc., 2012 WL 1979244, at *5 (E.D. Cal. June 1, 2012). Section 2-207(1) 

“converts a common law counteroffer into an acceptance even though it states additional 

or different terms.” Idaho Power Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 596 F.2d 924, 926 (9th 

Cir. 1979); see U.C.C. § 2-207(1). The additional terms become part of the contract unless 

the offer is specifically limited to its terms, the offeror objects to the additional terms, or 

the additional terms materially alter the terms of the offer. See U.C.C. § 2-207(2). A 

contract is materially altered if the additional terms “result in surprise or hardship if 

incorporated without express awareness by the other party.” U.C.C. § 2-207 Official 

Comment 4 (1995). 

Here, CSI’s application of UCC 2-207 is misguided as there were no proverbial 

battle of the forms issues here. CSI did not attempt to object, modify, or offer its own set 

of terms and conditions. The Terms and Conditions offered CSI an opportunity to object 

and provided the parameters for proposing alternative terms and conditions. Doc. No. 1 

Case: 1:20-cv-03937 Document #: 19 Filed: 07/06/20 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:305
5

19cv2058-JAH (WVG)

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

Exh. H. If CSI wished to avoid the Forum Selection Clause, it should have expressly denied 

the clause rather than accepting the Sales Order, along with the Terms and Conditions, 

without any dispute. See Cunico Corp. v. Custom Alloy Corp. 772 F.App’x 595 (9th Cir. 

2019) (holding that “[i]f [plaintiff] wished to avoid an obligation to arbitrate, it should have 

rejected the arbitration clause when it issued its purchase order.”]. Additionally, CSI 

contends the Terms and Conditions were surreptitiously incorporated in the parties 

agreement as additional terms and “materially alter” the contract. Doc. No. 15 at 12-13. 

However, the allegation is meritless. Not only did CoreFX provide CSI with the Terms and 

Conditions on each Sales Order, but CSI was also provided an email confirmation after 

each transaction. See Doc. Nos. 15-7, 15-8, 15-9 (the email expressly notified CSI that the 

Terms and Conditions were provided in the email attachment). Therefore, the Terms and 

Conditions, more specifically the Forum Selection Clause, are incorporated into the parties’ 

agreement. 

B. The Forum Selection Clause is Not Unconscionable

CSI next contends the Forum Selection Clause is both procedurally and 

substantively unconscionable because the clause is listed within a contract of adhesion. 

Doc. No. 15 at 17-18. In California, a contract must be both procedurally and substantively 

unconscionable to be rendered invalid. Chavarria v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 733 F.3d 916, 

922 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Nagrampa v. MailCoups Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1281 (9th Cir. 

2006) (“even if the evidence of procedural unconscionability is slight, strong evidence of 

substantive unconscionability will tip the scale.”). The Court will discuss each in turn.

1. Procedural Unconscionability

Procedural unconscionability “addresses the circumstances of contract negotiation 

and formation, focusing on oppression or surprise due to unequal bargaining power.” 

Pinnacle Museum Tower Ass’n. v. Pinnacle Market Development, 55 Cal. 4th 223, 246 

(2012). “Oppression arises from inequality of bargaining power which results in no real 

negotiation and an absence of meaningful choice,” which “[s]urprise involves the extent to 

which the terms of the bargain are hidden in a ‘prolix printed form’ drafted by a party in a 

Case: 1:20-cv-03937 Document #: 19 Filed: 07/06/20 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:306
6

19cv2058-JAH (WVG)

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

superior bargaining position.” Serpa v. California Surety Investigations, Inc., 215 

Cal.App.4th 695, 703 (2013) (citations and quotations omitted). 

The Court first focuses on whether the Terms and Conditions are considered a 

contract of adhesion. A contract of adhesion is “a standardized contract, which, imposed 

and drafted by the party of superior bargaining strength, relegates to the subscribing party 

only the opportunity to adhere to the contract or reject it.” Armendariz v. Found. Health 

Psychcare Servs., Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 83, 99 (2000). Under California law, a contract of 

adhesion has an element of procedural unconscionability because it is “presented on a takeit-or-leave-it basis and [is] oppressive due to ‘an inequality of bargaining power that 

result[ed] in no real negotiation and an absence of meaningful choice.’” Nagrampa, 469 

F.3d at 1281 (citations omitted). 

CoreFX does not dispute that the Terms and Conditions compose a standardized 

contract, however, that does not inherently create a contract of adhesion. Here, the Terms 

and Conditions were not provided on a “take it or leave it” basis. Rather, CSI had the 

opportunity to present any additional or different terms or to object thereto. See Doc. No. 

1-2 at 18. In fact, the Terms and Conditions specifically mention that they apply “unless” 

modified in writing. Id. CSI has not provided evidence of any attempt to negotiate or alter 

the Terms and Conditions provided with each of the transactions in dispute. In addition, 

any potential unequal bargaining power is mitigated by CSI’s sophistication as a “premier 

ingredient company.” See Haisha Corp. v. Sprint Solutions, Inc., 2015 WL 224407, at *5 

(S.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2015) (holding that the fact that the parties to the arbitration agreement 

were “two sophisticated corporate entities” mitigated against a finding of procedural 

unconscionability). Lastly, CoreFX’s automated procedure in providing CSI the Terms and 

Conditions with each transaction significantly reduces any level of unfairness as CSI had

countless opportunities to dispute the contract. See Molina v. Scandinavian Designs, Inc., 

2014 WL 1615177, at *7 (N.D. Apr. 21, 2014) (finding that the amount of procedural 

unconscionability was limited based on the fact that the arbitration agreement was provided 

as a separate document). 

Case: 1:20-cv-03937 Document #: 19 Filed: 07/06/20 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:307
7

19cv2058-JAH (WVG)

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

As such, the Court finds the evidence of procedural unconscionability is minimal.

However, the Court will address the substantive unconscionability of the arbitration 

provision, under the sliding scale approach employed by California courts. See Nargrampa, 

469 F.3d at 1284. 

2. Substantive Unconscionability 

“Substantive unconscionability pertains to the fairness of an agreement’s actual 

terms and to assessments of whether they are overly harsh or one-sided.” Pinnacle Museum 

Tower Assn v. Pinnacle Mkt. Dev. (US), LLC, 55 Cal. 4th 223, 246 (2012). “An arbitration 

provision is substantively unconscionable if it is ‘overly harsh’ or generates ‘one sided’ 

results.” Nagrampa, 469 F.3d at 1280 (citations omitted). Contract terms are not 

substantively unconscionable when they merely give one side a greater benefit; rather, the 

terms must be “so one-sided as to ‘shock the conscience,’....” Sanchez v. Valencia Holding 

Co., LLC, 61 Cal. 4th 899, 910-11 (2015) (citations omitted). 

CSI argues the Forum Selection Clause is substantively unconscionable by 

arbitrarily concluding that the provision is one-sided and “no reasonable business person 

would have accepted.” Doc. No. 15 at 18. The Ninth Circuit has held that requiring 

arbitration “at the location of a defendant’s principal place of business” is presumptively 

enforceable. Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Sys., 623 F.3d 832, 837 (9th Cir. 2010). Similarly, 

California law “favors forum selection agreements...so long as they are procured freely 

and voluntarily, with the place chosen having some logical nexus to one of the parties or 

the dispute....” America Online, Inc. v. Superior Court, 90 Cal.App.4th 1, 12 (2001). Here,

the Forum Selection Clause, which requires any dispute and claims to take place in Illinois, 

is alone not unconscionable. CoreFX has its principal place of business in Illinois, and

conducts widespread transactions throughout the country. Doc. No. 16 at 10-11. Thus, there 

is a logical nexus between the Forum Selection Clause and CoreFX’s principal place of 

business. Additionally, the Forum Selection Clause was procured freely and voluntarily, as 

CSI had an opportunity to provide any additional or different terms or to object to the 

Forum Selection Clause, but failed to do so. See Doc. No. 1-2 at 18. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03937 Document #: 19 Filed: 07/06/20 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:308
8

19cv2058-JAH (WVG)

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

CSI contends that it maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in 

California. Doc. No. 15 at 10. CSI also argues the alleged nonconforming goods cause 

Plaintiff harm in California and is related to contracts executed in California. Id. at 11. 

Although CSI correctly points out the inconvenience of having to litigate the present case 

in Illinois, that is not a factor indicating the clause is unconscionable. CSI has not argued 

that they had no reason to expect arbitration would take place in Illinois, or that their right 

to litigate would be withheld if the Forum Selection Clause were enforced. While CSI’s 

hardship in traveling to Illinois is certainly one circumstance to consider, CoreFX’s 

widespread transactions throughout the country rationally justifies its desire to limit the 

location for which it potentially could be subject to suit to that of its principal place of 

business. See Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 593 (1991). As such, the Court 

finds that CSI has not made a sufficient showing that the Forum Selection Clause is 

substantively unconscionable. Accordingly, the Forum Selection Clause is not 

unconscionable.

C. The Forum Selection Clause Is Otherwise Valid

A forum selection clause is prima facie valid unless the party challenging the 

provision can show it is unreasonable under the circumstances. M/S Bremen v. Zapata OffShore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10 (1972). A forum selection clause may be deemed unreasonable 

under the following circumstances: (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. CSI does 

not assert that the Forum Selection Clause would deprive their day in court. Therefore, the 

Court will not address this exception. 

1. The Forum Selection Clause was not the product of fraud or overreaching

Plaintiff contends the Forum Selection Clauses are a result of fraud and overreaching 

because the parties originally established a course of dealings without any terms and 

Case: 1:20-cv-03937 Document #: 19 Filed: 07/06/20 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:309
9

19cv2058-JAH (WVG)

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

conditions, the terms were one-sided, CSI has no opportunity to negotiate the terms of the 

agreement, and CoreFX failed to advise CSI of the clause. Doc. No. 15 at 20-21.

The Court is not persuaded by CSI’s contentions. “For a party to escape a forumselection clause on the grounds of fraud, it must show that the ‘inclusion of that clause in 

the contract was the product of fraud or coercion.’” Richards v. Lloyd’s of London, 135 

F.3d 1289, 1289 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 518 

(1974)) (emphasis in original). “Overreaching” is a ground “short of fraud,” and a mere 

showing of “non-negotiability and power difference” does not render a forum selection 

clause unenforceable. Mahoney v. Deputy Orthopaedics, Inc., 2007 WL 3341389, at *7 

(E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2007). Plaintiff’s arguments fall short of demonstrating that the forum 

selection clause was a product of either fraud or overreach. As discussed, CoreFX included 

the Terms and Conditions on each of the purchases CSI made.1 The Forum Selection 

Clause was included with each transaction. CSI’s argument that the terms were one-sided 

and CSI had no opportunity to negotiate the terms of the agreement does not excuse 

compliance with it, “absent some form of fraudulent inducement by the party seeking to 

enforce the clause.” See Blanco v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 1996 WL 479529, at *1 

(N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 1996) (citing cases). Indeed, CSI has been unable to provide the Court 

with evidence of a dispute as to the Forum Selection Clause on any of the disputed

transactions. Furthermore, CoreFX’s failure to advise CSI of the existence of the Forum 

Selection Clause or explain its meaning does not amount to fraudulent inducement. See 

Murphy v. Schneider Nat’l, Inc., 362 F.3d 1133, 1141 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted) 

(finding that “education on a non-negotiated contract will not vitiate a forum selection 

clause”). For these reasons, the Court finds the Forum Selection Clause was not a product 

of fraud or overreach. 

2. Enforcing the Clause Would Not Violate California’s Public Policy 

 1 Although CoreFX failed to include the Terms and Conditions on one of the contested transaction, the 

course of dealings between the parties indicates a mistake was made as every other Sales Order included 

a separate Terms and Conditions. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03937 Document #: 19 Filed: 07/06/20 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:310
10

19cv2058-JAH (WVG)

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

Plaintiff argues that enforcement of both the Forum Selection Clause and the choice 

of law provision in the Terms and Conditions would contravene California’s public policy 

by improperly waiving remedies provided by California’s UCL and FAL. Doc. No. 15 at

19-20.

A forum selection clause is invalid “if enforcement would contravene a strong public 

policy of the forum in which suit is brought.” M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 

U.S. 1, 15 (1972). Enforcement of a forum selection clause “contravene[s] a strong public 

policy” of a forum state, requiring invalidation of the clause, where enforcement would 

result in the waiver of an unwaivable right. Doe 1 v. AOL LLC, 552 F.3d 1077, 1084 (9th 

Cir. 2009). Courts “may consider whether choice-of-forum and choice-of-law clauses 

operate in tandem as prospective waiver of a party’s right to purse [its] remedies when 

deciding whether a forum selection clause is unenforceable as against the strong public 

policy of that state,” but only when “a state prohibits the prospective waiver of the 

remedies.” Miller v. Hearst Commc’ns, Inc., 2012 WL 3205241, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 

2012) (citations omitted). In Doe 1, the Ninth Circuit held that enforcement of AOL’s

forum selection clause would place the case in Virginia state court, where plaintiff would 

be unable to invoke protections under their Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) claim. 

552 F.3d at 1084. The CLRA contains an anti-waiver provision that states “[a]ny waiver 

by a consumer of the provisions of this title is contrary to public policy and shall be 

unenforceable and void.” Id. (quoting Cal. Civ. Code § 1751). Here, CSI has been 

unsuccessful in providing a legal basis for treating its UCL and FAL claim as an 

unwaivable right. Even if there is no Illinois equivalent to the UCL and FAL, there is no 

anti-waiver clause in the UCL or FAL, as is contained in the CLRA, that could be violated 

by enforcing the Forum Selection Clause. The fact that remedies available in Illinois may 

be less favorable than those available in California is not a valid basis to deny enforcement 

of a Forum Selection Clause. See Besag v. Custom Decorators, Inc., 2009 WL 330934, at 

*4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2009) (“[S]imply because Oregon ostensibly provides less favorable 

Case: 1:20-cv-03937 Document #: 19 Filed: 07/06/20 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:311
11

19cv2058-JAH (WVG)

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

remedies compared with California is not sufficient in and of itself to invalidate the forum 

selection clause.”).

Furthermore, CSI “fails to challenge the parties’ Forum Selection Clause explicitly, 

and instead improperly speculates as to how the transferee forum would ultimately resolve 

the issue of what substantive law should be applied to” CSI’s claims. Besag, 2009 WL 

330934, at *4. “A forum selection clause determines where the case will be heard, it is 

separate and distinct from choice of law provisions that are not before the court.” Id. at *3. 

Having determined that the Forum Selection Clause should be considered separately, the 

Court must analyze whether the Forum Selection Clause, standing alone, violates 

California’s public policy. CSI has not demonstrated that the public policy underlying 

California’s UCL and FAL remedies relate to venue. See Besag, 2009 WL 330934, at *4 

(“In order for Besag to prevail on her claim that enforcement of the Forum Selection Clause 

would contravene California’s public policy, she must demonstrate that the public policy 

underlying the Labor Code relates to venue.”). In addition, despite the choice of law clause 

in the Terms and Conditions, the decision as to which state’s laws apply to CSI’s claims is 

for the Illinois court to make. See Beatie and Osborn LLP v. Patriot Scientific Corp., 431 

F. Supp. 2d 367, 381-82 (S.D. N.Y. 2006) (analyzing California’s public policy interest in 

the case despite the choice of law provision stating that matters “shall be governed by the 

laws of the State of New York”). As such, the Court finds that enforcement of the Forum 

Selection Clause does not contravene California’s strong public policy. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case: 1:20-cv-03937 Document #: 19 Filed: 07/06/20 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:312
12

19cv2058-JAH (WVG)

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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS CoreFX’s motion to transfer 

to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and DENIES AS 

MOOT CoreFX’s motion to dismiss. The Clerk shall TRANSFER this matter forthwith 

and close this Court’s files. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 6, 2020

 

_________________________________

Hon. John A. Houston

United States District Judge

Case: 1:20-cv-03937 Document #: 19 Filed: 07/06/20 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:313