AC MILLER CON. PROD. CORP. v. Quikset Vault Sales Corp., Civ. A. No. 69-2964.

Decision Date12 March 1970
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 69-2964.
Citation309 F. Supp. 1094
PartiesA. C. MILLER CONCRETE PRODUCTS CORP., Plaintiff, v. QUIKSET VAULT SALES CORP., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Edward C. Gonda, Seidel, Gonda & Goldhammer, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Robert C. Grasberger, Strong, Barnett & Grasberger, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

WOOD, District Judge.

This is a motion of the defendant to transfer or in the alternative dismiss an action brought by the plaintiff to void a contract between the parties on the ground that certain of its provisions are offensive to Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The primary contention of the defendant in this regard is that the parties provided that legal actions contesting the contract would be brought in California and that therefore the case in our Court should be dismissed or transferred. Section 24 of the contract between the parties provides that:

"It is mutually agreed that regardless of where executed, this agreement shall be conclusively deemed to have been executed under and pursuant to the laws of the State of California and that the laws of said state, and only said state, shall be applied hereunder, and that any causes of action between the parties hereto shall only have jurisdiction and venue in the Courts of the State of California in and for the County of Orange."

In resisting the defendant's motions, the plaintiff contends that the above provision refers only to actions in state courts under state laws, and does not encompass actions under federal laws, so that it is not a bar to the instant action in this jurisdiction. We disagree. The provision explicitly provides that in "any cause of action" jurisdiction and venue will be in Orange County, California. We think that, in the context of this contracting situation, although the parties may not have specifically adverted to the possibility of a federal action, it was their general agreement that all disputes1 and causes of action be resolved in Los Angeles, California. If any cause of action could not by law be brought in state courts, but had to be brought in federal courts, the logical inference is that the proper federal district would be the one encompassing Orange County, California, not some other one. The defendant, who has numerous similar franchising agreements with parties in different areas of the country, obviously bargained for this term so he would not have to defend his agreements at far-flung locations, and it is not our province to upset agreements of the parties in these circumstances.2

Neither party is at odds with the so-called "modern rule" that

"* * * while private parties may not by contract prevent a court from asserting its jurisdiction or change the rules of venue, nevertheless, a court in which venue is proper and which has jurisdiction should decline to proceed with the cause when the parties have freely agreed that litigation shall be conducted in another forum and where such agreement is not unreasonable at the time of litigation." Central Contracting Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 367 F.2d 341, 344 (3rd Cir. 1966).

See also Wm. H. Muller & Co., Inc. v. Swedish American Line, Ltd. & T.S.S. Co., Ltd., 224 F.2d 806 (2nd Cir. 1955). Accordingly, since we consider the instant agreement reasonable under the circumstances, we could dismiss the action Ibid. However, in the interest of saving the plaintiff the effort and expense of bringing a new action in California, we will, pursuant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Leasewell, Ltd. v. Jake Shelton Ford, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • September 28, 1976
    ...F.Supp. 121 (N.D.Calif.1971); Goff v. AAMCO Transmissions, Inc., 313 F.Supp. 667 (D.Md.1970); A. C. Miller Concrete Products Corp. v. Quikset Vault Sales Corp., 309 F.Supp. 1094 (E.D.Penn. 1970); Hawaii Credit Card Corp. v. Continental Credit Card Corp., 290 F.Supp. 848 (D.Hawaii 1968); Nat......
  • Furry v. First Nat. Monetary Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma
    • October 23, 1984
    ...at 710; Full-Sight Contact Lens v. Soft Lenses, Inc., 466 F.Supp. 71, 73 (S.D.N.Y.1978); A.C. Miller Concrete Products Corp. v. Quickset Vault Sales Corp., 309 F.Supp. 1094, 1095 (E.D.Pa.1970). The Court must first consider whether the forum selection clause in this case requires that the a......
  • Jack Winter, Inc. v. Koratron Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • March 9, 1971
    ...F.2d 341 (3d Cir. 1966); Goff v. AAMCO Automatic Transmission, Inc., 313 F.Supp. 667 (D.Md.1970); A. C. Miller Concrete Prod. Corp. v. Quikset Vault Sales Corp., 309 F.Supp. 1094 (E.D.Pa.1970); Matthiessen v. National Trailer Convoy, Inc., 294 F.Supp. 1132 (D.Minn. 1968); National Equipment......
  • Full-Sight Contact Lens v. Soft Lenses, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • December 5, 1978
    ...dismiss under 1406(a). See Jack Winter, Inc. v. Koratron Co., 326 F.Supp. 121 (N.D.Cal.1971); A. C. Miller Concrete Products Corp. v. Quikset Vault Sales Corp., 309 F.Supp. 1094 (E.D.Pa.1970). The Court finds this agreement between the parties to be enforceable, thus making venue in the Sou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT