Benhamou v. Moving Solutions, LLC f/k/a Gold Standard Relocation
2:21-cv-10823
E.D. Mich.Aug 24, 2022Background
- Plaintiffs Hadas and Thomas Benhamou, Michigan residents, hired Moving Solutions (a Florida freight broker) to move household goods from Houston, TX to Berkley, MI in June–July 2020.
- Plaintiffs electronically signed a June 17 contract; Plaintiffs allege they were not given the full terms then and only received a confirmation email without a forum-selection clause.
- On July 10, 2020, Plaintiffs requested an addition to the move; a “Binding Move Estimate” containing a forum-selection clause (Florida, Palm Beach County or S.D. Fla.) was attached and both parties signed three days before the July 14 move.
- Triple Crown Moving & Storage, LLC (a motor carrier contracted by Moving Solutions) performed the physical move; Plaintiffs allege damage, loss, misrepresentations, subcontracting without consent, and delays.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in Michigan state court; defendants removed to federal court on diversity grounds. Moving Solutions moved to dismiss based on the contract’s forum-selection clause. The court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the forum-selection clause render venue improper under Rule 12(b)(3)? | Benhamou: venue in Michigan is proper; clause does not make venue “wrong.” | Moving Solutions: clause requires disputes be litigated in Florida, so dismissal is appropriate. | Court: Dismissal under 12(b)(3) is improper; forum clauses do not alter §1391 venue (Atlantic Marine). Venue is proper in E.D. Mich. |
| Can the forum-selection clause be enforced by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion? | Benhamou: 12(b)(6) is not the right mechanism; factual disputes exist. | Moving Solutions: 12(b)(6) may be used to dismiss if clause is valid. | Court: 12(b)(6) is a permissible mechanism to seek dismissal on a forum clause (subject to factual issues). |
| Was the forum clause obtained by unconscionable means (fraud, duress, or unknowingly/unwillingly)? | Benhamou: clause was not provided earlier and was added days before the move, creating duress and unknowingly agreed terms. | Moving Solutions: plaintiffs lack factual support; had alternatives and were not coerced. | Court: Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the clause was agreed to unknowingly and unwillingly (duress/unconscionability standard met at pleading stage); fraud as to the clause not shown. |
| Should the clause be enforced now or is discovery required to resolve factual disputes? | Benhamou: factual issues require discovery before enforcing clause. | Moving Solutions: clause is valid and should be enforced now. | Court: Denied dismissal; ordered discovery to resolve material facts bearing on enforceability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atlantic Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49 (2013) (forum-selection clauses do not make venue improper under §1391; enforceable via transfer analysis)
- M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972) (forum-selection clauses enforceable absent strong cause to set aside)
- Wong v. PartyGaming Ltd., 589 F.3d 821 (6th Cir. 2009) (party opposing clause bears burden to show unenforceability; clauses not invalid merely because consumer form contracts)
- Smith v. Aegon Co. Pension Plan, 769 F.3d 922 (6th Cir. 2014) (Rule 12(b)(6) may be used to enforce a forum-selection clause in some contexts)
- Moses v. Bus. Card Express, 929 F.2d 1131 (6th Cir. 1991) (fraud claims must specifically challenge inclusion of forum clause to avoid enforcement)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state plausible claim to survive dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards for plausibility)