Gita Sports Ltd. v. Sg Sensortechnik Gmbh & Co. Kg

• Decision Date: 20 June 2008
• Docket Number: No. 3:08-cv-00092-FDW.,3:08-cv-00092-FDW.
• Citation: 560 F.Supp.2d 432
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina
• Parties: GITA SPORTS LTD., Plaintiff, v. SG SENSORTECHNIK GMBH & CO. KG, Defendant.

560 F.Supp.2d 432

GITA SPORTS LTD., Plaintiff, v. SG SENSORTECHNIK GMBH & CO. KG, Defendant.

No. 3:08-cv-00092-FDW.

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division.

June 20, 2008.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

John West Gresham, Ferguson, Stein, Chambers, Adkins, Gresham & Sumter, Charlotte, NC, for Plaintiff.

Nicole Ashley Murphey, Byrne, Davis and Hicks, PC, Charlotte, NC, for Defendant.

ORDER

FRANK D. WHITNEY, District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes now before the Court upon Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. No. 2). Plaintiff has responded, Defendant has replied, the Court has heard oral argument, and this matter is now ripe for review. For the reasons stated below, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED IN PART in that Plaintiffs causes of action for breach of contract, unfair and deceptive trade practices, fraud, and conversion are DISMISSED, but DENIED IN PART in that Plaintiffs causes of action for open account and account stated are REMANDED to the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a North Carolina corporation involved in the wholesale sales of racing bicycles and related equipment. Defendant is a German corporation doing business in North Carolina and is the manufacturer of Ergomo, a mobile performance measuring instrument. Pursuant to a written agreement between the parties, the Sales Exclusive Supply Agreement ("Agreement"), Plaintiff became the exclusive distributor of Ergomo Pro, Ergomo Spin, Ergomo parts and accessories, and any future Ergomo products within the United States and Canada. The parties entered into the Agreement on December 5, 2005; it took retroactive effect on November 1, 2005, and was to expire on December 31, 2008. According to Plaintiffs Complaint, 21% of Defendant's products were returned for service and repairs during the 2006-2007 fiscal year. The rate of services and repairs for the current fiscal year is 31%. Under the Agreement, Defendant was to replace faulty products within thirty (30) days of being notified that they were faulty. Defendant has allegedly failed to meet its obligations to repair its faulty products. On November 7, 2007, Plaintiff received a termination notice from Defendant for not meeting the minimum purchase amount required. In December of 2007, Defendant made certain statements that allegedly have been harmful to Plaintiffs reputation. In addition, Defendant allegedly has been selling Ergomo products through other North American distributors, despite the fact that the original term for the exclusive distributorship has not yet expired.

More important to the instant motion are the following clauses from the Agreement: "(1) The place of fulfillment and court of venue is M6rfelden-Walldor[;] (2) The laws of the Federal Republic of Germany are solely applicable to this exclusive supply agreement." The Agreement, including these forum-selection and choiceof-law clauses, was written in English.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Based on the foregoing facts, Plaintiff brought suit in the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County on December 21, 2007. Plaintiff raised six causes of action for breach of contract and various tortious conduct relating to Defendant's performance under the contract.¹ Plaintiff has also asked for punitive damages, alleging that Defendant's conduct has been willful, wanton or malicious, or in reckless disregard of Plaintiffs rights.

On March 7, 2008, Defendant removed the case to this Court based on diversity of citizenship. On March 14, 2008, Defendant moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, relying on a forum-selection clause designating the proper venue as Mörfelden-Walldorf, Germany.

LEGAL STANDARD

Despite much confusion in this field of the law,² the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has held that "a motion to dismiss based on a forum-selection clause should be properly treated under Rule 12(b)(3) as a motion to dismiss on the basis of improper venue." Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Astellas Pharma, Inc., 471 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2006). Thus, a case may be dismissed for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) based on a forum-selection clause. Indeed, if the Court accepts Defendant's arguments, this case must be dismissed as the Court lacks jurisdiction to transfer a case to the courts of a foreign nation. See Allen v. Lloyd's of London, 94 F.3d 923 (4th Cir.1996) (dismissing the case after holding that the forum-selection clause designating the United Kingdom was both mandatory and valid).

ANALYSIS

The parties have vigorously argued and briefed the following issues: (1) whether the forum-selection clause is mandatory or permissive; and (2) if mandatory, whether the forum-selection clause is valid. The second inquiry is more complex than it first appears, in that the parties have suggested three alternative bases for determining validity: (a) the Bremen, Carnival Cruise, and Stewart line of Supreme Court cases and their progeny; (b) North Carolina law; or (c) German law, be it (i) domestic German law or (ii) European Community law. These issues will be addressed in turn.

A. Mandatory or Permissive

A forum-selection clause can be either mandatory — providing the designated forum with exclusive jurisdiction over any disputes — or permissive — providing the designated forum with jurisdiction over the parties, but not necessarily exclusive jurisdiction. See Scotland Memorial Hosp., Inc. v. Integrated Informatics, Inc., No. 1:02-cv-796, 2003 WL 151852, at *3-4 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 8, 2003) (citing S & D Coffee, Inc. v. GEI Autowrappers, 995 F.Supp. 607, 609 (M.D.N.C.1997)). As a general rule, a forum-selection clause "will not be enforced as a mandatory selection clause without some further language that indicates the parties' intent to make jurisdiction exclusive." Id. at *4. A crucial distinction between a mandatory clause and a permissive clause "is whether the clause only mentions jurisdiction or specifically refers to venue." Id.

In Scotland Memorial, the forum-selection clause stated, "venue will be the courts in Atlanta, Georgia." Id, The court noted, "Although language such as `exclusive' or `sole' is not used, the specific reference to the venue indicates mandatory language .... [T]he language of the contract deals with an exact venue and indicates specific intent." Id. Based on this reference to a specific venue, the court concluded that the forum-selection clause was mandatory. Similarly, the court in Lawler v. Schumacher Filters America, Inc., 832 F.Supp. 1044 (E.D.Va.1993) held that a forum-selection clause was mandatory because it specifically stated that "venue is in the courts of Crailsheim, Germany." Id. at 1048.

In this case, the forum-selection clause states, "The place of fulfillment and court of venue is Mörfelden-Walldor." Just as in Scotland Memorial and Lawler, the parties have clearly and specifically designated a forum, Mörfelden-Walldor, Germany, as the court of venue. The clause does not say that the parties consent to jurisdiction in Mörfelden-Walldor, but rather that Mörfelden-Walldor is the court of venue.³ The Court will not construe this clause to be anything other than what it plainly is: a forum-selection clause that specifically states the exclusive court of venue. The clause is, therefore, mandatory, and must be enforced if it is valid.

B. Validity

A mandatory forum-selection clause designating an international forum must result in dismissal of the case if the clause is valid. The parties have briefed three possible standards under which validity may be determined.

1. Federal or State Law

In the seminal case of MIS Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 92 S.Ct. 1907, 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972), the Supreme Court took a situation in which "[f]orumselection clauses have historically not been favored by American courts," id. at 9, 92 S.Ct. 1907, and replaced it with one in which "such clauses are prima facie valid and should be enforced unless enforcement is shown by the resisting party to be `unreasonable' under the circumstances," id. at 10, 92 S.Ct. 1907. The Court applied the same reasoning to a forum-selection clause in a form contract between a cruise line and individual consumers in Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 111 S.Ct. 1522, 113 L.Ed.2d 622 (1991). The Court added that the clause must be "reasonable" and pass "judicial scrutiny for fundamental fairness." Id. at 595, 111 S.Ct. 1522. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has summarized the test for reasonableness thusly:

Choice of forum and law provisions may be found unreasonable if (1) their formation was induced by fraud or overreaching; (2) the complaining party "will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court" because of the grave inconvenience or unfairness of the selected forum; (3) the fundamental unfairness of the chosen law may deprive the plaintiff of a remedy; or (4) their enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum state.

Allen v. Lloyd's of London, 94 F.3d 923, 928 (4th Cir.1996) (quoting Bremen, 407 U.S. at 18, 92 S.Ct. 1907). Because Bremen dealt with federal question jurisdiction, there was some confusion as to whether the same analysis would apply in a case involving diversity of citizenship. The Supreme Court answered this question affirmatively in Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 108 S.Ct. 2239, 101 L.Ed.2d 22 (1988). However, the Court in Stewart based its ruling on an interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and the jurisprudential axiom that "a district court sitting in diversity must apply a federal statute that controls the issue before the court and that represents a valid exercise of Congress' constitutional powers." Id. at 27, 108 S.Ct. 2239. This reasoning in Stewart, tied to the application of a federal statut...