438 F.3d 759 (7th Cir. 2006), 05-2636, Muzumdar v. Wellness Intern. Network, Ltd.
|Docket Nº:||05-2636, 05-2686, 05-2827.|
|Citation:||438 F.3d 759|
|Party Name:||Pratima J. MUZUMDAR and Tranquil Passage, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WELLNESS INTERNATIONAL NETWORK, LTD., Win Network, Inc., Ralph Oats, Cathy Oats, and Sheri Matthews, Defendants-Appellees. Richard Sharif, Abdul Rashid, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Wellness International Network, Ltd., Win Network, Inc., Ralph Oats, Cathy Oats, and Sheri Matt|
|Case Date:||February 17, 2006|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|
Argued Jan. 12, 2006.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 04 C 6175, Charles R. Norgle, Sr., Judge.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Nos. 02 C 3047 & 02 C 5801, Samuel Der-Yeghiayan, Judge.
Robert Plotkin, Michael Curletti (argued), Plotkin Law Firm, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Rebecca Alfert, Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, Chicago, IL, John F. Martin, Godwin Gruber, Brian N. Hail (argued), Gruber, Hurst, Johansen & Hail, Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, and BAUER and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
EVANS, Circuit Judge.
These cases are before us again: this time the issue involves forum selection clauses. Previously, in Sharif v. Wellness International Network, Ltd., 376 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2004)1, we reviewed and reversed a denial of a motion to compel arbitration with the result that claims of less than $100,000 were subject to arbitration. That left some claims for consideration by the court. Before us now the question is "what court?"
The cases were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Muzumdar case comes to us from Judge Charles R. Norgle, Sr. and the Sharif and Rashid cases from Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan. The result in all three was the same: They were dismissed without prejudice pursuant to forum selection clauses found in the relevant contracts. Both judges found that the proper forum was Dallas County, Texas. The plaintiffs appeal.
A challenge to venue based upon a forum selection clause can appropriately be brought as a motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). Our review of the enforceability of a forum selection clause is de novo. Continental Ins. Co. v. M/V Orsula, ...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP