Coast Runner, Inc. v. Kickstarter, PBC
7:24-cv-00326
W.D. Tex.Aug 14, 2025Background
- Coastal Runner, Inc. (Plaintiff) sued Kickstarter, Indiegogo, Label Creative, and two unnamed defendants for alleged antitrust and conspiracy violations related to the crowdfunding of the CR-1 product.
- Plaintiff claims Defendants colluded to exclude them from the crowdfunding market, allegedly due to the founders’ political views.
- Each defendant had a separate contract with the plaintiff, each containing distinct mandatory forum selection clauses specifying litigation in different states.
- Defendants moved to sever claims and/or transfer venue based on these clauses; Indiegogo also moved to compel arbitration.
- The court considered whether severance of claims and transfer to different venues was proper, given strong factual and legal overlap among the defendants’ alleged conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severance of Claims | Claims are interrelated; severance would be prejudicial and inefficient | Claims should be severed based on separate contracts and venues | Severance denied—claims arise from same transaction and legal/factual overlap |
| Enforceability of Forum Selection Clauses | Clauses do not apply; claims are extra-contractual | Clauses are mandatory, valid, and broadly apply to these disputes | Clauses are valid, mandatory, and apply |
| Venue Transfer | Case should stay in Texas for convenience and fairness | Case should be transferred per forum selection clauses | Transfer to N.D. California |
| Compel Arbitration (Indiegogo) | Not specifically addressed, but opposed | Indiegogo seeks arbitration per its agreement | Left for transferee court to decide |
Key Cases Cited
- Applewhite v. Reichhold Chems., 67 F.3d 571 (5th Cir. 1995) (district courts have broad discretion regarding severance)
- Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49 (2013) (forum selection clauses should generally be enforced except in unusual cases)
- Pennzoil Expl. & Prod. Co. v. Ramco Energy Ltd., 139 F.3d 1061 (5th Cir. 1998) (scope of broadly drafted forum selection clauses)
- Kevlin Servs., Inc. v. Lexington State Bank, 46 F.3d 13 (5th Cir. 1995) (forum selection provisions are valid unless enforcement is unreasonable)