Opinion ID: 172533
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Yavuz's Lawsuit

Text: Despite this new agreement, the relationship between Yavuz and the defendants apparently did not improve. In July 2003, almost fourteen years after the Fiduciary Agreement had been negotiated, Yavuz filed suit in Oklahoma state court alleging the defendants had essentially defrauded him of his investment monies. In particular, he claimed the defendants engaged in a course of conduct that made the loan note and the supposed twenty percent interest in the Tulsa property worthless. In addition to damages, Yavuz sought to impose a constructive trust on the Tulsa property. After the 61MM Defendants removed the suit to federal district court, Adi and FPM filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue, forum non conveniens, and failure to state a claim. [3] The district court granted the motion to dismiss, finding venue in Oklahoma federal court improper. Specifically, the district court determined that all of Yavuz's claims arose from his investment relationship with Adi (and his corporate entities) and were governed by the Fiduciary Agreementan agreement negotiated and executed in Switzerland. Additionally, the court noted that the Fiduciary Agreement contained a choice-of-law and forum selection clause which provided that Swiss law would govern and that Fribourg, Switzerland was the proper forum. The court therefore concluded that Switzerland was the proper forum for this dispute because the only connection these parties have to Tulsa, Oklahoma is that one or more of the Defendants own real estate here and Yavuz is attempting to use this proceeding as a prejudgment attachment of the real estate. Yavuz I, 465 F.3d at 425.