Dix v. ICT Group, Inc.
Decision Date | 17 February 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 23184-4-III.,23184-4-III. |
Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Parties | Suzy DIX and Jeffrey R. Smith, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. ICT GROUP, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation; and America Online, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Respondents. |
David L. Broom, Richard W. Kuhling, William J. Schroeder, Gregory C. Hesler, Paine Hamblen Coffin Brooke & Miller LLP, Michael D. Kinkley, Michael D. Kinkley PS, Spokane, WA, for Appellants.
James B. King, Attorney at Law, Spokane, WA, Daniel T. Donovan, John C. O'Quinn, Kirkland & Ellis, Washington, DC, for Respondents.
Suzy Dix and Jeffrey Smith appeal the trial court's CR 12 dismissal of their claims. The dismissal was based on a contractual forum selection clause specifying Virginia as the proper forum for litigation. We reverse and remand.
America Online, Inc. (AOL), is an internet service provider. Before becoming an AOL member and using its online services, an individual must choose to accept the Terms of Service Agreement (TOS) by clicking the "I agree" button while registering for a membership. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 45, 162. One provision of the TOS is a forum selection clause which states: "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." CP at 57. After the membership account is created, an individual establishes the account under a master screen name, which is also the individual's e-mail address. AOL allows each master account to include up to six additional e-mail addresses, each with its own secondary screen name. Periodically, when the AOL Web browser is being used, a pop-up box is displayed asking the user if he or she wishes to create a new account using one of the secondary screen names. The pop-up box has two options: the user can either click on a button that says "I agree" or a button that says "Tell me more." CP at 164. The only way to close the pop-up box, without choosing either option, is to click on a small "x" in the upper right corner of the box.
Ms. Dix and Mr. Smith claim they did not elect to create new accounts, but AOL nonetheless created secondary ones from their original accounts without their permission and billed them for the additional accounts. When they called AOL to complain, their calls were handled by ICT Group, Inc., a third party company used by AOL to handle customer service calls from its subscribers. ICT is located in Spokane. Ms. Dix and Mr. Smith claim ICT refused to believe they did not create the secondary accounts and offered them only two months of free service rather than a full refund for the erroneous billing.
On July 29, 2003, Ms. Dix and Mr. Smith filed a class action lawsuit against AOL and ICT.1 On August 27, AOL filed a petition for removal to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. On October 20, concluding it did not have removal jurisdiction, the federal court remanded the case to state court. Dix v. ICT Group, Inc., 2003 WL 22852135 (2003). On October 31, AOL filed a motion to dismiss in state court based on the forum selection clause. On January 5, 2004, the trial court issued a letter opinion determining the forum selection clause was valid and dismissed the suit without prejudice. On January 23, the trial court's letter opinion was incorporated into a final judgment of dismissal. This appeal follows.
Initially, AOL contends Ms. Dix and Mr. Smith's notice of appeal was untimely because it was filed on February 17, 2004, more than 30 days after the trial court entered its January 5 letter opinion. Relying on Steinmetz v. Call Realty, Inc., 107 Wash.App. 307, 310-12, 23 P.3d 1115 (2001), AOL seeks dismissal of the appeal.
A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of the decision which the party filing the notice wants reviewed. RAP 5.2(a). Generally, however, a memorandum decision is not a final, appealable order. Chandler v. Doran Co., 44 Wash.2d 396, 400, 267 P.2d 907 (1954); In re Estate of Christensen, 77 Wash. 629, 630, 138 P. 1 (1914); see also Corrigal v. Ball & Dodd Funeral Home, Inc., 89 Wash.2d 959, 961, 577 P.2d 580 (1978). A memorandum decision is an expression of the opinion of the court and should be considered only as a direction to counsel in the preparation of a final order. Chandler, 44 Wash.2d at 400,267 P.2d 907. An appeal cannot be taken until the formal order is entered. Id. Here, the trial judge issued both an opinion letter and later a final judgment of dismissal on January 23, 2004, incorporating the letter. The final, appealable order was the order of dismissal entered on January 23, not the trial court's letter opinion issued on January 5. The notice of appeal was timely filed.
Ms. Dix and Mr. Smith contend the trial court erred in dismissing their lawsuit based on the forum selection clause. They assert the forum selection clause in the TOS agreement is not enforceable and the trial court erred in concluding Virginia was the appropriate forum in which to litigate their dispute.
The parties disagree on the proper standard of review. Ms. Dix and Mr. Smith argue de novo review is proper, while AOL argues the trial court's decision to enforce a forum selection clause is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Washington courts have either applied the abuse of discretion standard or have concluded the forum selection clause should be enforced without determining the appropriate standard of review. Bank of Am., N.A. v. Miller, 108 Wash.App. 745, 748, 33 P.3d 91 (2001) ( ); Voicelink Data Servs., Inc. v. Datapulse, Inc., 86 Wash.App. 613, 617-21, 937 P.2d 1158 (1997) ( ); Exum v. Vantage Press, Inc., 17 Wash.App. 477, 479, 563 P.2d 1314 (1977) ( ). Because the only standard of review explicitly applied in situations involving forum selection clauses is the abuse of discretion standard, we conclude that the de novo standard does not apply. We accordingly review the trial court's decision for an abuse of discretion.
Voicelink, 86 Wash.App. at 618, 937 P.2d 1158. Washington courts will enforce a forum selection clause unless it is deemed unfair and unreasonable. Exum, 17 Wash.App. at 478-79, 563 P.2d 1314. The party seeking to invalidate such a clause "bears a heavy burden of showing that trial in the chosen forum would be so seriously inconvenient as to deprive the party of a meaningful day in court." Miller, 108 Wash.App. at 748, 33 P.3d 91. Absent evidence of fraud, undue influence, or unfair bargaining power, courts are reluctant to invalidate forum selection clauses because they serve the purpose of enhancing contractual predictability. Id.
Ms. Dix and Mr. Smith first contend that because AOL unilaterally created the secondary accounts, the TOS from the original account does not apply and they are not required to litigate their dispute in Virginia. They assert that enforcement of the forum selection clause is unreasonable and unjust because the secondary accounts were a product of fraud and deception and they were not provided an opportunity to enter into a new TOS agreement for these secondary accounts. But the original membership agreement entered into by Ms. Dix and Mr. Smith defined "account" as "[t]he original account you open when you register for AOL membership through which you obtain access to the AOL Online Service and other AOL services, and all sub-accounts or other accounts opened under your original account." CP at 48 (emphasis added). According to the agreement, "[t]his Membership Agreement, as published over the AOL Online Service, the terms provided at registration and billing terms posted on the AOL Online Service constitute the entire and only agreement regarding your AOL membership and your Account." CP at 56. Because the terms of service listed in the original membership agreement expressly apply to all accounts related to the original account, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dix v. Ict Group, Inc.
...the selected forum does not permit class suits and thus the clause violates public policy underlying the CPA. Dix v. ICT Group, Inc., 125 Wash.App. 929, 106 P.3d 841 (2005). ¶ 10 The day after the Court of Appeals' decision was filed, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) was signed ......
-
Elvig v. NINTENDO OF AMERICA, INC.
...Protection Act is to "protect this state's citizens from unfair and deceptive business practices." See Dix v. ICT Group, Inc., 125 Wash.App. 929, 106 P.3d 841, 844-45 (2005) (emphasis added); see also RCW § 19.86.010(2) (defining terms to regulate "any commerce directly or indirectly affect......
-
Carideo v. Dell, Inc.
...selection clause that would have required consumers to litigate in a forum that precluded class-wide relief. Dix v. ICT Group, Inc., 125 Wash.App. 929, 106 P.3d 841, 845 (2005). That Washington law is currently in a state of flux suggests that there is no "fundamental" public policy prohibi......
-
Erwin v. Cotter Health Centers, Inc.
...1314 (1977). We generally review a court's decision to enforce a forum selection clause for abuse of discretion. Dix v. ICT Group, Inc., 125 Wash.App. 929, 934, 106 P.3d 841, review granted, 155 Wash.2d 1024, 126 P.3d 820 (2005). The standard of review applicable here, however, is not clear......
-
§ 4.3 Superior Court Decisions that May Be Appealed
...of the court [that] should be considered only as a direction to counsel in the preparation of a final order." Dix v. ICT Grp., Inc., 125 Wn. App. 929, 933, 106 P.3d 841 (2005), aff'd, 160 Wn.2d 826, 161 P.3d 1016 (2007). However, unlike oral rulings, a memorandum decision may, on its face, ......
-
Table of Cases
...Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr. v. Dep't of Ecology (D/O Center), 119 Wn.2d 761, 837 P.2d 1007 (1992): 5.3(3)(a) Dix v. ICT Grp., Inc., 125 Wn. App. 929, 106 P.3d 841 (2005), aff'd, 160 Wn.2d 826, 161 P.3d 1016 (2007): 4.3(1), 5.5(2) Dobbins v. Mendoza, 88 Wn. App. 862, 947 P.2d 1229 (1997): 12.......
-
§ 5.5 Time Allowed to File Notice
...is determined by CR 5(e) and 58. RAP 5.2(c). An appeal cannot be taken until an appealable order is entered. Dix v. ICT Grp., Inc., 125 Wn. App. 929, 933, 106 P.3d 841 (2005) (citing Chandler v. Doran Co., 44 Wn.2d 396, 400, 267 P.2d 907 (1954) (prerule case)), aff'd, 160 Wn.2d 826, 161 P.3......
-
§3.6 Analysis
...will not be enforced when the foreign forum does not provide a class action procedure but Washington law does. Dix v. ICT Group, Inc., 125 Wn.App. 929, 937, 106 P.3d 841, aff'd, 160 Wn.2d 826, 161 P.3d 1016 (4)CR 3(d): Lis pendens In an action affecting title to real property, the plaintiff......