Arjun Vasan v. Checkmate.com Inc.
2:25-cv-00765
C.D. Cal.Jun 24, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Arjun Vasan co-founded VoiceBite Corporation, which merged with Defendant Checkmate.com, Inc. in April 2024; Vasan proceeded to work for Checkmate under an offer letter and bonus agreement.
- Vasan alleges he was pressured into the merger based on promises regarding good faith and compensation; he contends that after the merger, he faced hostility, denial of retention bonus, increased workload, and was ultimately terminated after requesting medical leave.
- Plaintiff's claims arise from events he alleges predominantly occurred while he was residing and working in California, though he briefly worked from Texas.
- Vasan filed a ten-claim complaint including federal and state leave violations, retaliation, wrongful termination, wage theft, breach of contract, and fraud.
- Checkmate moved to dismiss or transfer venue to New York, citing a forum selection clause and arguing that California was not a proper venue.
- The District Court’s order addresses both the procedural (venue and transfer) and substantive (validity of forum selection clause) issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper Venue | Most material events occurred in California | Events/decisions occurred in Texas and New York | Venue is proper in California |
| Validity of Forum Selection Clause | Clause is void under CA Labor Code § 925; Vasan not individually represented, most claims not employment-related | Clause is valid and enforceable; Vasan did not primarily work in CA and was represented during negotiations | Clause not enforceable; violates CA law and Vasan not represented individually |
| Discretionary Transfer (1404 factors) | Factors (forum, law, witnesses) favor remaining in CA | Most witnesses and connections are in New York; forum selection clause governs | No discretionary basis to transfer; most factors favor CA forum |
| Judicial Notice Requests | Some evidence (e.g., prior order) should be judicially noticed | Opposes notice of disputed facts/evidence offered by Vasan | Only undisputed public records judicially noticed |
Key Cases Cited
- Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49 (Forum-selection clauses are generally controlling except in exceptional circumstances)
- Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (Courts may take judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record)
- Petersen v. Boeing Co., 715 F.3d 276 (Venue motions may consider facts outside pleadings, with inferences to non-movant)
- Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (Section 1404(a) transfer factors listed)
- Manetti-Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci America, Inc., 858 F.2d 509 (Forum selection clause applicability to tort claims depends on contract relationship)
- Dole Food Co., Inc. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104 (Doctrine of forum non conveniens: burden is on defendant to show alternative forum and interest balancing)
- Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp., 236 F.3d 1137 (Adequacy of alternative forum in forum non conveniens requires some remedy)
- Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834 (Venue in contract cases looks to place of negotiations, signing, and breach)