Doe 1 v. Aol LLC

Citation552 F.3d 1077
Decision Date16 January 2009
Docket NumberNo. 07-15323.,07-15323.
PartiesDOE 1, Doe 2, and Kasadore Ramkissoon, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AOL LLC, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, San Francisco, CA; C. Oliver Burt, III, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, West Palm Beach, FL; Richard R. Wiebe, Law Office of Richard R. Wiebe, San Francisco, CA; and James K. Green, James K. Green, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL, for the plaintiffs-appellants.

Patrick J. Carome, Samir C. Jain, D. Hien Tran, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C., for the defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-05866-SBA.

Before: D.W. NELSON, STEPHEN REINHARDT, and CARLOS T. BEA, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam Opinion; Concurrence by Judge D.W. NELSON; Concurrence by Judge BEA.

PER CURIAM:

On July 31, 2006, AOL LLC (formerly America Online, Inc.) made publicly available the internet search records of more than 650,000 of its members. The records contained personal and sometimes embarrassing information about the members. Plaintiffs, members of AOL, brought an action in federal district court in California on behalf of themselves and a putative nationwide class of AOL members, alleging violations of federal electronic privacy law, 18 U.S.C. § 2702(a). A subclass of AOL members who are California residents also alleged various violations of California law, including the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code § 1770.

Under the AOL Member Agreement, all plaintiffs agreed to a forum selection clause that designates the "courts of Virginia" as the fora for disputes between AOL and its members. The Member Agreement also contains a choice of law clause designating Virginia law to govern disputes.

AOL moved to dismiss the action for improper venue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), on the basis of the parties' forum selection clause. AOL contends the clause permits plaintiffs to refile their consumer class action in state or federal court in Virginia. Plaintiffs contend the forum selection clause limits them to Virginia state court, where a class action remedy would be unavailable to them; this, they contend, violates California public policy favoring consumer class actions and renders the forum selection clause unenforceable.

The district court granted AOL's motion and dismissed the action without prejudice to plaintiffs refiling it in a state or federal court in Virginia. We hold the district court erred when it interpreted the forum selection clause to permit actions in either state or federal court in Virginia; the plain language of the clause—courts "of" Virginia—demonstrates the parties chose Virginia state courts as the only fora for any disputes. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

I.
A. The Complaint

Plaintiffs Kasadore Ramkissoon and Doe 1 and Doe 2,1 members of AOL, filed a class action complaint in the District Court for the Northern District of California against AOL on behalf of themselves and a nationwide putative class of AOL members. The complaint alleges Ramkissoon currently is a resident of New York, while Doe 1 and Doe 2 currently are residents of California. The complaint does not state when Doe 1 and Doe 2 became residents of California, where they resided when they entered into the Member Agreement with AOL, or where they resided when they used AOL's services.

AOL provides its members with access to the Internet and a variety of related features, including search tools and security features. The complaint alleges that on July 31, 2006, "roughly twenty million AOL Internet search records were packaged into a database" and made publicly available for download for a period of approximately ten days. The data consisted of the records of which internet sites were visited by nearly 658,000 AOL members who conducted such visits from approximately March 2006 through May 2006. AOL does not contest this occurrence.

The complaint alleges the data contained the addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, social security numbers, passwords and other personal information of AOL members. Plaintiffs also allege the searches reveal members' "personal struggles with various highly personal issues, including sexuality, mental illness, recovery from alcoholism, and victimization from incest, physical abuse, domestic violence, adultery, and rape," by revealing their Internet searches for information on these issues. Although AOL admitted it made a "mistake" and took down the data, "mirror" websites appeared on the internet that reproduced the data. Some of these websites present the data in a searchable form and others "invite the public to openly criticize and pass judgment on AOL members based on their searches."

Plaintiffs' complaint alleges seven causes of action. Two of the causes of action— violation of the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2702(a),2 and unjust enrichment under federal common law—are brought on behalf of all plaintiffs and the putative nationwide class.

The other five causes of action are brought under California statutory and common law. Doe 1 and Doe 2 bring these claims on behalf of the putative sub-class of AOL members who are California residents. They allege AOL violated the following California statutes: (1) the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA),3 which prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices resulting in the sale of goods or services; (2) the California Customer Records Act,4 which requires businesses to destroy customers' records that are no longer to be maintained, and requires businesses to maintain security procedures to protect customers' personal information; (3) California False Advertising law;5 and (4) California Unfair Competition law,6 which prohibits unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices. These California plaintiffs also allege AOL committed the tort of public disclosure of private facts under California common law.

B. The Forum Selection and Choice of Law Clause

AOL's headquarters are located in Dulles, Virginia. All members of AOL's online service, including all plaintiffs and putative class members, must agree to the AOL Member Agreement as a prerequisite to register for AOL service. Each member must click on a box that states the member has agreed to the terms of the Member Agreement before he can complete his registration.

The Member Agreement contains a choice of law clause that designates Virginia law, excluding its conflict-of-law rules. It also contains a forum selection clause that designates the "courts of Virginia" as the fora for disputes between AOL and its members. The choice of law and forum selection clause of the Member Agreement in effect during the time period relevant to the complaint—January 1, 2004 through September 22, 2006—states in its entirety:

The laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, excluding its conflicts-of-law rules, govern this Member Agreement and your membership. You expressly agree that exclusive jurisdiction for any claim or dispute with AOL or relating in any way to your membership or your use of the AOL Services resides in the courts of Virginia and you further agree and expressly consent to the exercise of personal jurisdiction in the courts of Virginia in connection with any such dispute including any claim involving AOL or AOL Services. The foregoing provision may not apply to you depending on the laws of your jurisdiction. This Agreement shall not be governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.

C. District Court Order

Based on the forum selection clause, AOL moved to dismiss the action for improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) ("Rule 12(b)(3)"), or, alternatively, to transfer venue to the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).7 The district court granted AOL's Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss and adopted AOL's proposed order in its entirety. The district court held the forum selection clause "expressly requires that this controversy be adjudicated in a court in Virginia" and that "[p]laintiffs agreed the courts of Virginia have `exclusive jurisdiction' over any claims or disputes with AOL, and venue in the Northern District of California is improper." The order dismissed plaintiffs' complaint "without prejudice to the refiling of their claims in a state or federal court in Virginia."

II.

We review a district court's order enforcing a contractual forum selection clause and dismissing a case for improper venue for abuse of discretion. Argueta v. Banco Mexicano, S.A., 87 F.3d 320, 323 (9th Cir.1996). Where the interpretation of contractual language in a forum selection clause does not turn on the credibility of extrinsic evidence but on an application of the principles of contract interpretation, we review the district court's interpretation de novo. Hunt Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Supreme Oil Co., 817 F.2d 75, 77 (9th Cir.1987).

A motion to enforce a forum selection clause is treated as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3); pleadings need not be accepted as true, and facts outside the pleadings may be considered. Argueta, 87 F.3d at 324.

III.

As a threshold matter, the parties dispute the meaning of the forum selection clause, specifically the phrase "exclusive jurisdiction ... resides in the courts of Virginia." AOL claims the phrase "courts of Virginia" refers to state and federal courts in Virginia, while plaintiffs claim it refers to Virginia state courts only. We agree with plaintiffs' interpretation.

We...

To continue reading

Request your trial
359 cases
  • Korman v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 14, 2019
    ...litigation is permissible in both state and federal court or only state court. For example, respondent relies on Doe 1 v. AOL LLC (9th Cir. 2009) 552 F.3d 1077 ( Doe 1 ) and American Soda v. U.S. Filter Wastewater Group (10th Cir. 2005) 428 F.3d 921 ( American Soda ) to argue that the desig......
  • Whatsapp Inc. v. NSO Grp. Techs. Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • July 16, 2020
    ...1907, 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972), and courts "apply federal law to the interpretation of the forum selection clause." Doe 1 v. AOL LLC, 552 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Manetti–Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci Am., Inc., 858 F.2d 509, 513 (9th Cir. 1988) )."Contract terms are to be given their o......
  • Durham v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • February 15, 2017
    ...273, 276 (9th Cir. 1984). In the Ninth Circuit, courts interpret forum selection clauses under federal common law. Doe 1 v. AOL LLC , 552 F.3d 1077, 1083 (9th Cir. 2009) ; Manetti–Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci Am., Inc. , 858 F.2d 509, 513 (9th Cir. 1988). "A written contract must be read as a whol......
  • State ex rel. Balderas v. Real Estate Law Ctr., P.C., CIV 17-0251 JB\LF
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • December 31, 2019
    ...venue and that the plaintiff then bears the burden of proving that venue is proper. See Motion at 6 (citing Doe 1 et. Al v. AOL LLC, 552 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2009) (Nelson, J.)). Additionally, Mr. Pratt argues that, per 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), when a case is filed in an improper venue, th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Here Lions Roam: Cisg as the Measure of a Claim's Value and Validity and a Debtor's Dischargeability
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal No. 34-2, June 2018
    • Invalid date
    ...Dist. LEXIS 63187, at *3 (D. Haw. May 24, 2010); In re Yahoo! Inc., 313 F. App'x 722, 722 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); Doe 1 v. AOL LLC, 552 F.3d 1077, 1080 (9th Cir. 2009); Jacada (Europe) Ltd. v Int'l Mktg. Strategies, Inc., 255 F. Supp. 2d 744, 746 (W.D. Mich. 2003).244. Isaak I. Dore &......
  • Capture the Flag: Winning With Forum Selection Clauses
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Litigation (CLA) No. 33-1, 2020
    • Invalid date
    ...2019) 913 F.3d 704 [agreement stating claims must be litigated in Minnesota state court barred removal]; Doe 1 v. AOL LLC (9th Cir. 2009) 552 F.3d 1077, 1081-1082 [clause stating "exclusive jurisdiction resides in the courts of Virginia" precludes litigation in federal court]; see also Korm......
  • Maneuvering to Terrain: Enforcement of Forum-selection Clauses After Atlantic Marine
    • United States
    • Alabama State Bar Alabama Lawyer No. 75-4, July 2014
    • Invalid date
    ...647 F.3d 472, 479 (2d Cir. 2011); Slater v. Energy Servs. Group Int'l, Inc., 634 F.3d 1326, 1333 (11th Cir. 2011); Doe 1 v. AOL, LLC, 552 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2009); Muzumdar v. Wellness Int'l Network, Ltd., 438 F.3d 759, 760 (7th Cir. 2006).19. See, e.g., Silva v. Encyclopedia Britann......
  • Ohio's "aggressive" attack on medical identity theft.
    • United States
    • Journal of Law and Health Vol. 24 No. 1, March 2011
    • March 22, 2011
    ...(Oct. 5, 2007), http://blawg.scottandscottllp.com/businessandtechnologylaw/ 2007/10/data_destruction_laws.html. (229) Doe 1 v. AOL LLC, 552 F.3d 1077, 1080 (9th Cir. (230) CAL. CIV. CODE [section] 1798.81 (West 2010). California is not the only state that has the disposal requirement. For e......

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