Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand and defendant’s motion to transfer venue. The court held that the defendant, a separate Florida entity, was not bound by the forum-selection clause in a retainer agreement executed by its predecessor entity. The court nevertheless found that the plaintiff’s choice of forum and other considerations weighed against transferring the case to the Middle District of Florida.
Holdings
- Florida law governs whether Consuegra & Duffy is bound by the retainer agreement because the agreement was executed in Florida and Colorado choice-of-law rules apply the law of the place where the contract was made to issues concerning a contract's construction, validity, and effect.
- Consuegra & Duffy was not a successor to the Law Offices and was not bound by the retainer agreement's forum-selection clause.
- Consuegra & Duffy's continued performance under the retainer agreement did not bind it to the agreement or its forum-selection clause because Consuegra & Duffy was not a party to the agreement.
- Remand was not required because the forum-selection clause was not enforceable against Consuegra & Duffy, and Plaintiffs conceded that diversity jurisdiction existed.
- Transfer was not warranted because Defendant failed to show that the private and public-interest factors made Colorado sufficiently inconvenient or that the interests of justice favored transfer.
- The court would not consider Defendant's argument that Florida courts had exclusive jurisdiction because Defendant raised it for the first time in its reply brief.
Questions Presented
- Whether Consuegra & Duffy, PLLC was bound by the retainer agreement's exclusive Colorado forum-selection clause even though it was not a party to the agreement.
- Whether the action should be remanded to Colorado state court based on that forum-selection clause.
- Whether the action should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (19)
- Nicodemus v. Union Pac. Corp., 318 F.3d 1231, 1235 (10th Cir. 2003)(followed)
- Env't. Remediation Holding Corp. v. Talisman Cap. Opportunity Fund, L.P., 106 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1092 (D. Colo. 2000)(followed)
- Cunningham v. BHP Petroleum Great Britain PLC, 427 F.3d 1238, 1245 (10th Cir. 2005)(followed)
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988)(followed)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)(followed)
- Wolf v. Gerhard Interiors, Ltd., 399 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1166 (D. Colo. 2005)(followed)
- Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Country Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509, 1515 (10th Cir. 1991)(followed)
- Precision Fitness Equip. of Pompano Beach, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., No. 08-cv-01228-CMA-KLM, 2010 WL 551404, at *3 (D. Colo. Feb. 11, 2010)(followed)
- In re Est. of Loflin, 81 P.3d 1112, 1114 (Colo. App. 2003)(followed)
- Borroel v. Lakeshore, Inc., 618 F. Supp. 354, 360 (D. Colo. 1985)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 19.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…