Fteja v. Facebook, Inc.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12991
| S.D.N.Y. | 2012Background
- Fteja alleges Facebook disabled his account without justification and for discriminatory reasons based on religion/ethnicity.
- Fatouros seeks to join as a plaintiff; Facebook opposes joining.
- Facebook moves to transfer the case to the Northern District of California under §1404(a); alternatively, to dismiss or require a more definite statement.
- Fteja is a Staten Island, NY resident; Facebook is a Delaware corporation with headquarters in Palo Alto, CA; suit removed from NY state court to SDNY based on diversity.
- Court analyzes the forum-selection clause in Facebook’s Terms of Use, which requires that disputes be resolved in Santa Clara County, CA; dispute centers on whether Fteja assented to that clause.
- Court grants transfer to the Northern District of California; Fatouros’s motion to join is denied without prejudice for administrative reasons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of forum-selection clause against Fteja | Fteja did not assent or was not aware of terms. | Fteja assented by signing up and viewing terms via hyperlink. | Forum clause enforced; Fteja likely assented. |
| Whether action could have been brought in transferee forum | Northern District of California may not have jurisdiction over Facebook in this case. | Northern District of California is proper venue with personal jurisdiction over Facebook. | Yes; action could have been brought in Northern District of California. |
| Weight of forum clause in §1404(a) analysis | Forum clause should be given significant weight but not determinative. | Forum clause carries substantial weight and favors transfer. | Favors transfer given clause and factors. |
| Locus of operative facts and convenience of witnesses | Facts largely occur where Facebook operates; witnesses may be elsewhere. | Most operational facts and documents reside in California; witnesses in Palo Alto. | Factors weight in favor of transfer; witnesses and documents located in CA. |
| Plaintiff’s choice of forum deference in light of forum clause and connections | Plaintiff’s choice should be respected; connections to NY exist. | Choice of forum deference is diminished due to minimal NY nexus; factors favor transfer. | Limited deference to NY forum; transfer still warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1988) (forum-transfer analysis; guiding framework for §1404(a))
- Hershman v. UnumProvident Corp., 658 F. Supp. 2d 598 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (burden on moving party to show transfer proper; convenience factors)
- N.Y. Marine and Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2010) (weight of transfer factors; convenience of witnesses)
- Phillips v. Audio Active Ltd., 494 F.3d 378 (2d Cir. 2007) (four-part analysis for enforceability of forum clauses)
- Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002) (browsewrap vs clickwrap assent; communication of terms)
- Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2004) (ultimately enforceability of online terms; consent mechanics)
- Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (U.S. 1991) (forum clause enforceability on tickets; notice and assent concepts)
- Effron v. Sun Line Cruises, Inc., 67 F.3d 7 (2d Cir. 1995) (notice and assent to forum terms on tickets; enforceability)
- Atlantic Recording Corp. v. Project Playlist, Inc., 603 F. Supp. 2d 690 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (forum-selection clause considerations in transfer analysis)
- Drew v. Google, Inc., 259 F.R.D. 449 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (analysis of terms appearing in a registration flow; browsewrap vs clickwrap)