Samirah v. District Smiles Pllc
Civil Action No. 2020-3076
D.D.C.Mar 10, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Ibraheem Samirah, a Virginia resident, worked as a dentist at District Smiles (D.C.) from Oct. 2018 to June 2019 after training at StarBrite Dental in Maryland.
- Samirah signed an employment agreement containing a mandatory forum‑selection clause requiring litigation in Maryland state or federal court.
- He alleges breach of contract, unpaid wages, discrimination (race, sex, religion), and retaliation after being fired; he sued in D.C. Superior Court under breach, DCWPCL, DCHRA, and § 1981.
- Defendants removed to federal court and moved to transfer venue to the District of Maryland under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (relying on the forum clause) and sought partial dismissal of some claims.
- The district court held the forum‑selection clause valid and covering at least the breach claim, concluded that § 1404(a) requires transfer of the entire action, and granted transfer to the District of Maryland.
- The court declined to rule on the merits of the motion to dismiss the DCWPCL claims, leaving that issue to the transferee court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope/validity of forum‑selection clause | Clause is mandatory but some claims fall outside its scope so transfer should be denied | Clause covers any suit "arising under" the employment agreement and is valid and enforceable | Clause valid; breach claim at minimum falls within it |
| Whether a forum clause triggers transfer of entire action | Non‑contract claims not covered should remain in D.C. | Section 1404(a) transfers the entire civil action if a clause covers any claim | Entire action transferred because at least one claim is covered |
| Burden and analysis under Atlantic Marine | Plaintiff’s choice of forum should be given weight | Forum clause shifts burden to plaintiff to show public‑interest factors overwhelmingly disfavor transfer | Plaintiff must show public‑interest factors overwhelmingly disfavor transfer; he failed to do so |
| Whether court should dismiss DCWPCL claims now | D.C. court is best place; dismissal appropriate here | Dismissal is premature for this court; better addressed by transferee court | Court declined to decide dismissal; left to District of Maryland |
Key Cases Cited
- Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49 (2013) (forum‑selection clauses control transfer analysis and shift burden to plaintiff)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (lists private‑interest factors relevant to transfer analysis)
- North American Butterfly Ass'n v. Wolf, 977 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2020) ("arising from"/"arising out of" language requires a causal connection when interpreting clause scope)
- Cheney v. IPD Analytics, LLC, 583 F. Supp. 2d 108 (D.D.C. 2008) (assessing whether claims are governed by a contract forum clause by examining the claims' substance)
- Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Country Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509 (10th Cir. 1991) (§ 1404(a) authorizes transfer of an entire action, not individual claims)