Hosick v. Catalyst IT Services, Inc., 1:15-cv-03402

Plaintiff Alana Hosick attended a 12-week, full‑time training program run by Catalyst in Beaverton, Oregon, beginning March 2012; she alleges Catalyst did not pay minimum wages for the training period and seeks unpaid wages and penalties under the FLSA and Oregon law.
Hosick signed a one‑page Training Agreement stating she was "not an employee" during training, that training services were valued at $25,000 (repayable if she left within two years), that Maryland law governs, and that any dispute must be litigated in Maryland state court or the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
Catalyst is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Baltimore, Maryland; it also maintains an Oregon office and is authorized to do business in Oregon.
Catalyst moved to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) based on the forum‑selection clause and alternatively to transfer the case to the District of Maryland under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
The District of Oregon found venue proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (Catalyst is subject to personal jurisdiction), denied dismissal, but applied the Atlantic Marine framework to grant transfer under § 1404(a), enforcing the forum‑selection clause absent extraordinary public‑interest factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether forum‑selection clause makes venue improper under Rule 12(b)(3)	Hosick argued the clause should prevent suit in Oregon.	Catalyst argued the clause requires Maryland forum and dismissal.	Denied: § 1391(b) governs venue; forum clause is enforced via § 1404(a), not Rule 12(b)(3).
Whether § 1404(a) transfer to District of Maryland is appropriate	Hosick argued transfer is inconvenient and unjust.	Catalyst sought transfer under the agreement's forum clause.	Granted transfer under § 1404(a) using Atlantic Marine framework; forum clause given controlling weight.
Whether the Training Agreement (and its forum clause) is unconscionable	Hosick asserted procedural and substantive unconscionability (no bargaining, surprise, contravention of wage laws, unaffordability of Maryland litigation).	Catalyst argued agreement was clear, signed knowingly, and not contrary on its face to public policy.	Agreement not procedurally or substantively unconscionable on the record; plaintiff failed to show clause itself was procured by fraud/coercion.
Whether public‑interest factors overcome the forum clause	Hosick argued Oregon has stronger local interests (work performed there, plaintiff and witnesses local, Oregon wage law interests).	Catalyst relied on parties' bargained‑for forum and Maryland contacts.	Only local‑interest factor favored Oregon; other public factors neutral. Not enough to overcome clause; transfer ordered.

Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Tex., 134 S. Ct. 568 (Sup. Ct.) (forum‑selection clauses enforceable and evaluated under § 1404(a); plaintiff's forum choice entitled to no weight)
Manetti‑Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci Am., Inc., 858 F.2d 509 (9th Cir.) (federal law governs interpretation/enforceability of forum‑selection clauses)
Action Embroidery Corp. v. Atl. Embroidery, Inc., 368 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir.) (venue motion context; guidance on dismissal/transfer where venue improper)
Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir.) (district court discretion in § 1404(a) transfers considering convenience and fairness)
Richards v. Lloyd’s of London, 135 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir.) (to avoid a forum‑selection clause on fraud grounds, plaintiff must show clause itself was procured by fraud or coercion)