Filed January 9, 2017
Because this Court cannot transfer an action to a state court, the 2010 MOU requires dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. See Atl. Marine, 134 S. Ct. at 580-81. If this Court declines to enforce the parties’ agreement, however, the public and private interest factors that courts consider under Section 1404(a) compel the conclusion that transfer to Case 1:16-cv-01327-SS Document 11 Filed 01/09/17 Page 10 of 21 11 5978342v1 the District of Montana is appropriate.
Filed April 19, 2017
The first factor is irrelevant here because the dispute does not involve a specific piece of property, id. at 979, and the second factor is irrelevant due to the Separation Agreement’s forum-selection clause—by contracting to litigate in Minnesota, the parties waived arguments regarding the comparative “convenience” of other forums, Atl. Marine, 134 S. Ct. at 582.7 The remaining factors overwhelmingly favor staying the federal case.
Filed September 12, 2016
A, ¶ 14. Consistent with the Supreme Court’s instruction that forum-selection clauses be enforced barring “extraordinary circumstances unrelated to the convenience of the parties,” Atl. Marine, 134 S. Ct. at 581, this Court should dismiss this matter. See Carlyle Inv.
Filed August 8, 2016
In these cases, the Court should deem the traditional private-interest factors in favor of the contracted-for forum, and they should be completely disregarded when considering a 1404(a) Motion. Samuels, 2014 WL 441943 at *7 (citing Atlantic, 134 S.Ct. at 581-83). Because the plaintiff had the initial choice to set the forum in the forum-selection clause, only that choice deserves deference; thus, the plaintiff must show why the court should not transfer the case to the preselected forum.
Filed June 5, 2015
Case 2:14-cv-00646-JES-CM Document 57 Filed 06/05/15 Page 9 of 12 PageID 419 -10- 4936038.1 the Agreement”); cf. Atl. Marine, 134 S. Ct. at 583 (“The court in the contractually selected venue should not apply the law of the transferor venue to which the parties waived their right.”).4 And public policy favors the enforcement of the parties’ agreement, as doing so “furthers vital interests of the justice system.”
Filed August 15, 2014
C. The Wholesale Waiver of CLRA and California Civil Code § 1671(d) Remedies Constitutes an Extraordinary Circumstance Justifying the Denial of Transfer under Atlantic Marine Were this Court to find that the forum selection clause is valid, Atl. Marine dictates that it consider public interest factors that cut against transfer in this case. 134 S. Ct. at 582. Public interest factors include (1) the local interest in the lawsuit; (2) the court’s familiarity with governing law; (3) burden on local courts and juries; (4) congestion in the court; and (5) the costs of resolving a dispute unrelated to this forum.
Filed July 11, 2014
A. There Are No Exceptional or Extraordinary Public Interest Factors Present That Warrant Denying the Motion to Transfer In Atlantic Marine, the Supreme Court identified several public interest factors that courts may analyze to determine whether exceptional circumstances exist to defeat a transfer motion including, “the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home; [and] the interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law.” Atlantic Marine, 134 S. Ct. at 581 n.6. An analysis of those three factors here easily favors transfer.
Filed August 5, 2016
Accordingly, Plaintiff has not even come close to meeting its burden to establish “public-interest factors overwhelmingly disfavor a transfer.” See Atl. Marine, 134 S. Ct. at 581. B. Numerous Other Courts Have Ordered Severance and Transfer Contrary to Plaintiff’s arguments, severance and transfer to enforce a forum-selection clause is not even unusual after Atlantic Marine.
Filed April 8, 2016
Rather, it may “consider arguments about public-interest factors only.” Atl. Marine Const. Co., 134 S. Ct. at 581-82. Public-interest factors include “the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home; [and] the interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law.”
Filed May 22, 2017
As the Supreme Court noted in Atlantic Marine, “[t]he court in the contractually selected venue should not apply the law of the transferor venue to which the parties waived their right.” Atlantic Marine, 134 S.Ct. at 583. But even if California law or the law of another state applied, this factor would still weigh in favor of transfer.