§Why CasetextPricing

Krystal Inc. et al v. China United Transport, Inc. et al

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Third-Party Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Third-Party Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to the Contractual Forum Selection Clause

13 Cited authorities

  1. Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for the W. Dist. of Tex.

    571 U.S. 49 (2013)   Cited 3,933 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the correct procedural mechanism for enforcement of an FSC specifying a foreign forum is through a motion to dismiss for FNC

  2. The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.

    407 U.S. 1 (1972)   Cited 4,627 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts should enforce a choice-of-law clause when it is part of a "freely negotiated private international agreement"

  3. Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co.

    417 U.S. 506 (1974)   Cited 1,623 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding Securities Exchange Act claim arbitrable

  4. Parrino v. FHP, Inc.

    146 F.3d 699 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,288 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court properly considered documents attached to a motion to dismiss that described the terms of plaintiff's group health insurance plan, where plaintiff alleged membership in the plan, his claims depended on the conditions described in the documents, and plaintiff never disputed their authenticity

  5. Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S. A. v. M/V Sky Reefer

    515 U.S. 528 (1995)   Cited 334 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that enforcement of a forum selection clause is unreasonable when "the substantive law to be applied will reduce the carrier's obligations to the cargo owner below what COGSA guarantees"

  6. Docksider, Ltd. v. Sea Technology, Ltd.

    875 F.2d 762 (9th Cir. 1989)   Cited 245 times
    Holding that the following forum selection clause clearly designated state court as the exclusive forum: "[Docksider] hereby agrees and consents to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Virginia. Venue of any action brought hereunder shall be deemed to be in Gloucester County, Virginia."

  7. All Pacific Trading, Inc. v. Vessel M/V Hanjin Yosu

    7 F.3d 1427 (9th Cir. 1993)   Cited 90 times
    Holding the number of packages in each container determined the number of "packages" for COGSA purposes

  8. Kukje Hwajae Insurance v. M/V Hyundai Liberty

    408 F.3d 1250 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 62 times
    Holding that enforcement of a forum selection clause is treated as a motion asserting a defense of improper venue under Rule 12(b)

  9. Fireman's Fund Insurance v. M.V. DSR Atlantic

    131 F.3d 1336 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 74 times
    Finding that whether or not the bill of lading was contract of adhesion was "of no relevance" in determining whether forum selection clause should be enforced

  10. American Home Assurance Co. v. TGL Container Lines, Ltd.

    347 F. Supp. 2d 749 (N.D. Cal. 2004)   Cited 20 times
    Declining to find that there was a number of potential fora that would make a selection clause per se unenforceable

  11. Rule 106 - Remainder of or Related Statements

    Fed. R. Evid. 106   Cited 1,112 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a party is entitled to the admission of any part of a recorded statement which ought, in fairness, be considered contemporaneously with the portion of a statement excerpted by an adverse party