Dillon v. Quality Eco Techs.
Decision Date | 01 November 2022 |
Docket Number | C. A. CPU4-22-000828 |
Parties | SHIRLEY A. DILLON and HENRY D. DILLON, Plaintiffs-Below/Appellants, v. QUALITY ECO TECHNOLOGIES C/O SHAWN BRAINARD Defendant-Below/Appellee. |
Court | Court of Common Pleas of Delaware |
SHIRLEY A. DILLON and HENRY D. DILLON, Plaintiffs-Below/Appellants,
v.
QUALITY ECO TECHNOLOGIES C/O SHAWN BRAINARD Defendant-Below/Appellee.
C. A. No. CPU4-22-000828
Court of Common Pleas of Delaware, New Castle
November 1, 2022
Submitted: September 11, 2022
George E. Evans, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs
William P. Brady, Esq. Attorney for Defendant
DECISION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
DANBERG, CJ.
In this breach of contract action, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED without prejudice because, under the contract, the parties agreed the courts of Virginia shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any claims arising under the agreement and the proper forum for the adjudication of any dispute lies in Chesterfield County, Virginia. The Motion is granted for the reasons set forth below.
Facts and Procedural History
On April 13, 2022, Shirley A. Dillon, and Henry D. Dillon ("Plaintiffs") filed a JP Court Appeal against Quality Eco Technologies ("Defendant"). Plaintiffs bring this breach of contract claim against Defendant for a judgment of $15,000 together with interest and cost of this matter.
Plaintiffs allege they entered into an agreement with Defendant for a multilayer water filtration system and eco probiotic products on January 31, 2020.[1] On February 5, 2020, Defendant installed the products in Plaintiffs' home, but the products failed to perform properly.[2] Plaintiffs contend that after months of subsequent calls to Defendant for service on the failed products, they were informed by Shawn Brainard, owner of the company, that Defendant was not going to comply with its promises regarding its products.[3]
On June 10, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss under Civil Rules 17 and 12. Under Civil Rule 17(a), Defendant claims Plaintiff Shirley A. Dillon was not a real party in interest because she did not sign the agreement and thus must be dismissed. Under Civil Rule 12(b)(3), Defendant alleges improper venue because there is a forum selection clause within the contract, which indicates the courts of Chesterfield County, Virginia has exclusive jurisdiction over the agreement.
On July 1, 2022, a hearing was held on the Motion to Dismiss. The Court heard oral argument concerning the enforceability of the forum selection clause. The Court allowed Plaintiffs 30-days to supplement the record with an affidavit supporting the notion that the forum selection clause is unreasonable because enforcement of the clause would cause a hardship to Plaintiffs. Defendant was allowed 30-days to respond. The Court reserved decision.
Standard of Review
When considering a motion to dismiss, the Court must view the record "in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all reasonable inferences are considered most strongly in favor of the plaintiff'.[4] A motion to dismiss based upon a forum selection clause is considered under the Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule 12(b)(3), improper venue.[5] Under this standard, the Court "is not shackled to the
plaintiffs complaint and is permitted to consider extrinsic evidence from the outset".[6]
Party Contentions
Plaintiffs contend that the forum selection clause is unreasonable and should not be enforced because the travel to the contractual forum would cause "an extreme and overwhelming hardship" to Plaintiffs due to their age, health, and income.[7]
It is Defendant's position that Plaintiffs' have failed to meet their burden of establishing that the forum selection clause is unreasonable because Plaintiffs have not demonstrated sufficient hardship to overcome the well-settled precedent of enforcing forum selection clauses, and thus the clause is enforceable.[8]
Discussion
Delaware courts have found that "forum selection clauses are prima facie valid and should be enforced unless the resisting party can show the clause is unreasonable under the circumstances".[9] "Such an agreement is only unreasonable when its enforcement would seriously impair the...
To continue reading
Request your trial