925 F. Supp. 2d 868
S.D. Ohio2013Background
- Ohio plaintiff Composite Technologies, L.L.C. manufactured and shipped products for Defendant Inoplast Composites SA DE CV; Defendant is a Mexican entity.
- Plaintiff seeks money damages for unpaid orders; total alleged unpaid is $209,633.28.
- Complaint filed August 8, 2011; service issues led to a show cause order on May 24, 2012.
- Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on June 6, 2012; Exhibit A lists invoices and amounts.
- Defendant moves to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) (improper venue) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim).
- Court denies both motions: venue proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391; complaint states a plausible claim for relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue is improper due to a forum selection clause. | Plaintiff argues forum clause is controlling for Michigan; venue improper. | Defendant asserts forum clause requires Michigan and supports dismissal under 12(b)(3). | 12(b)(3) motion denied; venue proper under §1391. |
| Whether the forum selection clause governs at this stage. | Forum clause should control and render venue improper. | Clause not controlling for Michigan or not properly proven; 12(b)(3) not proper vehicle. | Clause not controlling at this stage; 12(b)(3) denied. |
| Whether the complaint states a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). | Plaintiff fulfilled orders; Defendant failed to pay; plausible claim for relief. | Extraneous contract documents may control; disputes over contracts require more proof. | 12(b)(6) denied; complaint plausibly states a claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kerobo v. Southwestern Clean Fuels Corp., 285 F.3d 531 (6th Cir. 2002) (forum-selection clause does not render venue improper for federal actions)
- Wong v. PartyGaming, Ltd., 589 F.3d 821 (6th Cir. 2009) (forum clauses do not deprive court of proper venue if statutorily proper)
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (forum selection clauses do not dictate the forum)
- Mediacom Se. LLC v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 672 F.3d 396 (6th Cir. 2012) (documents integral to complaint may be considered at motion to dismiss if no dispute on authenticity)
- Ouwinga v. Benistar 199 Plan Servs., 694 F.3d 783 (6th Cir. 2012) (extrinsic documents may be considered on motion to dismiss if integral to claim)
- Weiner v. Klais & Co., 108 F.3d 86 (6th Cir. 1997) (Rule 10(c) documents incorporated by reference; attached documents may be considered)
- Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., 998 F.2d 1192 (3d Cir. 1993) (extrinsic documents may be used to support dismissal)