MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on’Defendant Global Linguist Solutions, LLC’s (“Defendant” or “GLS”) Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint [Dkt. 113] and Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Jury Demand [Dkt. 115]. For the following reasons, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and will grant Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Jury Demand.
I. Background
A. Factual History
A detailed summary of the facts of this case is set forth in this Court’s July 8 Memorandum Opinion,
When Defendant was awarded a new contract with the U.S. Army, it changed two key contractual relationships. First, in early December 2012 it sought to terminate its local sponsorship agreement with Al Shora, leading to a dispute between the two companies over whether such termination was effective. (Id. ¶ 28.) Second, it contracted directly with Plaintiffs in late January 2013. (Id. ¶ 28.)
Plaintiffs’ cáse revolves around these changes. First, Plaintiffs allege they were not aware that Defendant and Al Shora were involved in a contract dispute. (Id. ¶ 28(f).) According to Plaintiffs, when they signed Defendant’s 2013 employment contracts “GLS’s employment of Plaintiffs in Kuwait was unlawful since GLS was unable to obtain Al Shorá’s agreement to continue sponsoring Plaintiffs for GLS or to transfer their sponsorship to another Kuwaiti entity.” (Id. ¶ 28(d).) This lack of sponsorship was material and Plaintiffs contend they would not have signed the employment contracts had they known their sponsorship was in doubt. (Id. ¶ 28(g).)
B. 2013 Contract with Defendant
As noted above, Plaintiffs signed new employment contracts directly with Defendant. These contracts are uniform and contain a “Governing Law” section. This section, first found in Section 18 of the contract, contains a jury waiver provision.
Section 9 of Attachment A to the contract provides as follows: “This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia of the United States of America.” (Id. at 11.) Section 18 contains a cross-reference to the Governing Law provision in Attachment A. (Id. at 8.)
In addition to this section, the contracts make clear that Plaintiffs are at-will employees. The contracts specifically state that GLS has the right “at its sole discretion” .to terminate its employment relationship with Plaintiffs “without cause at any time” and that Plaintiffs likewise “may voluntarily terminate this Agreement at any time.” (Id.) Additionally, Defendant will “provide return transportation from the Employee’s work location to the IRDO [Individual Replacement Deployment Operations] for theater outprocessing if this Agreement is terminated,” (id. at 8), but cautioned that “[t]ravel could be significantly restricted, delayed or made more difficult by operational requirements of the military or by restrictions imposed by civil authoritiesf.]” (Id. at 4.) The contracts also provide that “this assignment carries the risk of bodily harm/death,” and “[Hiving conditions at the assignment location could be remote and uncomfortable.” (Id.)
The contracts outline employee benefits. Under the- contracts, the positions are salaried. (Id. at 4.) The standard work schedule is set at twelve hours a day, six days per week, which could be more or less at the Defendant’s discretion. (Id. at 11.) Per the terms of the contract, employees are not entitled to any overtime pay. (Id. at 2.) Nor are employees entitled to salary
C. Procedural History
In the July 8 Memorandum Opinion, this Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. As a threshold matter, the Court rejected Plaintiffs’ arguments that Kuwaiti law applied. Instead, giving full force to the choice-of-law provision contained in the employment contracts, Virginia law applied to the case. (July 8 Mem. Op. at 21-30.) Nine of the eleven causes of action were dismissed; only the false imprisonment and fraud claims survived. (Id. at 53.) The Court granted Plaintiffs’ leave to file a second amended complaint and reserved ruling on the motion to strike until the Second Amended Complaint was filed. (Id.)
In the Second Amended Complaint now before the Court, Plaintiffs allege eight causes of action: • false imprisonment (“Count 1”); intentional infliction of emotional distress (“Count 2”); negligent infliction of emotional distress (“Count 3”); fraud (“Count 4”); rescission (“Count 5”); promissory fraud (“Count 6”); breach of contract (“Count 7”); and violation of Kuwaiti labor law (“Count 8”).
Defendant has moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety and strike Plaintiffs’ jury demand. Having been fully briefed and argued, Defendant’s motions are now before the Court.
II. Standard of Review
“A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint[.]” Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin,
“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] ... a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal,
Moreover, the plaintiff does not have to show a likelihood of success on the merits. Rather, the complaint must merely allege-directly or indirectly-each element of a “viable legal theory.” Twombly,
III. Analysis
A. Choice of Law
In their memorandum opposing the motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs contend that their complaint raises new factual allegations that the choice-of-law provision was procured as a result of unequal bargaining power between the parties. At the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel changed course and stated that they were not again challenging the choice-of-law provision. Even if this point were not conceded, however, the choice-of-law provision would be enforceable. First, Plaintiffs’ general allegations about the circumstances surrounding the signing of the employment contracts are not enough to invalidate the choice-of-law provision.- For the purposes of determining the enforceability of a choice-of-law provision, such general allegations are irrelevant. The disparity in bargaining power must have specifically resulted in the inclusion of the provision, and there is no evidence that happened here. See Faltings v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., No. 87-1123,
Second, Plaintiffs seek to portray themselves as powerless against GLS, arguing that the employment contracts are adhesion contracts. Plaintiffs’ argument is unpersuasive. Under Virginia law, an adhesion contract is defined as a “standard form contract, prepared by one party and presented to a weaker party—usually a consumer—who has no bargaining power and little or no choice about the terms.” Senture, LLC v. Dietrich,
In this case, Plaintiffs had the ability to terminate the contract for any reason and to choose other employment. Under Section 16(a) of the contract, “the employee may voluntarily terminate this agreement at any time by providing a fifteen day written notice to the Employer.” (Phillips Decl., Ex. 1 at 8.) Furthermore, if either party terminated the contract, Defendant was responsible for providing return transportation to the Individual Replacement Deployment Operations (“IRDO”) for out-processing. (Phillips Decl., Ex. 1 at 8.)
With respect to arguments about the choice-of-law provision already raised and decided, Plaintiffs have not alleged any additional facts that would change this Court’s prior analysis as set forth in the July 8 Memorandum Opinion. Under the law of the case doctrine, “when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.” TFWS, Inc. v. Franchot,
Plaintiffs have not argued that any of the exceptions should apply in this case. Regardless, none of the exceptions are applicable. The only plausible exception here is the third. To succeed, the challenging party has a “high burden” to show the prior decision was wrong. TFWS,
B. GLS’s Motion to Dismiss
Having determined what law to apply, the Court will turn to GLS’s Motion to Dismiss. Each of Plaintiffs’ claims is addressed in turn below.
Count 1—False Imprisonment
Under Virginia law, false imprisonment is defined as the restraint of a person’s liberty without sufficient cause. Zayre of Va., Inc. v. Gowdy,
Here, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant “acted with the intention of confining Plaintiffs within fixed boundaries.” (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 63.) “By physical barriers and by means of unreasonable duress,” Defendant restrained Plaintiffs’ freedom of movement “by barring Plaintiffs and Class members [sic] from leaving the Army bases for any reason, including medical appointments, personal time and emergency matters.” (Id. ¶ 64.) In addition, Plaintiffs allege that “[u]pon immediate arrival, GLS took their passports from them.” (Id. ¶ 16.) Plaintiffs contend Defendant had no legal justification in preventing them from leaving the base. (Id. ¶ 63.)
Accepting these allegations as true and construing all inferences in Plaintiffs’ favor, the Court is compelled to find that the Second Amended Complaint, although scant, sufficiently states a claim for false imprisonment against Defendant. See Trull v. Smolka, No. 3:08CV460-HEH,
Defendant renews its previous grounds for dismissal of the false imprisonment claim. (Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss Mem. at 20.) As before, the Court finds those arguments unpersuasive. (See July 8 Mem. Op. at 31-32.)
Because Plaintiffs have stated a sufficiently plausible claim of false imprisonment to survive dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court will deny Defendant’s motion as to Count 1.
Count 2—Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
To succeed on a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress in Virginia, the plaintiff must show “(1) the wrongdoer’s conduct was intentional or reckless; (2) that his conduct was outrageous and intolerable, offending the generally accepted standards of decency and morality; (3)' that there is a causal connection between the conduct and the emotional distress; and (4) that the resulting emotional distress was severe.” Ortiz v. Panera Bread Co., No. 1:10CV1424,
Plaintiffs have failed demonstrate that Defendant’s conduct meets the second element of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, namely, that Defendant’s conduct was so outrageous and extreme that it offends all notions of decency. When evaluating a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress; “[i]t is for the court to determine, in the first instance, whether the defendant’s conduct may reasonably be regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to permit re
Plaintiffs have not shown that Defendant’s conduct meets this exacting standard. On the one hand, they contend that Defendant’s alleged false imprisonment was so extreme and outrageous as to satisfy this element. (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 68.) In the next paragraph, however, they state that Defendant told them they were in danger of being “arrested, imprisoned, and/or deported by the Kuwaiti government if they left the base.” (Id. ¶ 69.) In light of the latter admission, no reasonable fact finder could find Defendant’s behavior extreme of outrageous.
Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant’s failure to inform them that they were not legally entitled to work in Kuwait was extreme and outrageous conduct. (Id. ¶ 69.) Plaintiffs’ argument is without merit. Even accepting as true these allegations, such an omission by Defendant is not “atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.” Furthermore, Plaintiffs have not shown a causal connection between the failure to inform and their emotional distress. Presumably, the uncertainty surrounding their legal status would be most distressful during their time in Kuwait. However, Plaintiffs were not made aware of their legal status until. July 2013. (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 28.) If Plaintiffs were unaware of their legal status, it is difficult to imagine how they could be distressed during the time between signing the employment agreements in January 2013 until when they discovered their legal jeopardy in July 2013. (See id. ¶¶ 69-71.)
Even assuming, without deciding, that a reasonable jury could find in Plaintiffs’ favor for the first three elements, Plaintiffs’ claim must fail because they have not shown they suffered the emotional distress required to meet the final element. To satisfy this element, a plaintiff must show that “the distress inflicted is so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.” Russo,
Plaintiffs contend that the “horrid living conditions” arising from their false imprisonment caused them to get “very sick.” (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 71.) Specifically, Plaintiffs state they had a “variety of physical illnesses, ranging from pneumonia to fevers to various infections, including eye and ear infections.” (Id.) These allegations do not rise to the level of severe distress that no reasonable person could endure. See Russo,
Plaintiffs also allege that they suffered “severe emotional distress and anxiety” as a result of “being declared fugitives in a foreign country.” (Second Am. Compl.
Count 3—Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
“The standard for negligent infliction of emotional distress is even more rigorous than the standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Michael,
As an initial matter, “there can be no actionable negligence unless there is a legal duty, violation of the duty, and a consequent injury.” Gray v. INOVA Health Care Servs.,
To the extent Plaintiffs’ negligence theory rests on negligent hiring of A1 Shora, this Court previously held that the Defense Base Act bars such a theory of liability. (July 8 Mem. Op. at 34.) Assuming, without deciding, that Defendant had a legal duty under Kuwaiti law to maintain local sponsorship and negligently failed to do so, Plaintiffs’ claim fails because they have not alleged that their emotional disturbance caused physical injury. First, it is not clear that the physical injury is a manifestation of their emotional disturbance. Plaintiffs argue that “[t]heir physical injuries caused by their emotional distress ranged from pneumonia to fevers to various infections, including eye and ear infections.” (Second Am. Compl. 79.) But elsewhere in the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs attribute their sickness to the “horrid and stressful living conditions,” rather than their emotional distress. (Id. ¶ 21) (“Given the horrid and stressful living conditions, Plaintiffs got very sick. Their sickness ranged from pneumonia to fevers to various infections, including eye and ear infections.”) Even generously construing Plaintiffs’ inconsistencies in their favor, causation still cannot be satisfied. By their own admission, Plaintiffs were unaware of their change in legal status until July 2013. (Id. ¶ 28.) Yet they allege they were confined to the base from early 2013. (Id. ¶ 16.) Any injuries they suffered from such confinement could not have been caused by emotional distress from Defendant’s negligence in failing to find a new sponsor because Plaintiffs were completely unaware that they were sponsorless.
Plaintiffs have not alleged that their emotional distress caused their physical
Count 4—Fraud
“Under Virginia law, a claim of fraud requires six elements: ‘(1) a false representation, (2) of a material fact, (3) made intentionally and knowingly, (4) with intent to mislead, (5) reliance by the party misled, and (6) resulting damage to the party misled.’ ” Lamberty v. Premier Millwork & Lumber Co., Inc.,
“In alleging fraud ... a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake, but intent and other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged generally.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 9(b). At minimum, a plaintiff alleging fraud must describe “the time, place, and contents of the false representations, as well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what he obtained thereby.” U.S. ex rel. Wilson v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.,
Here, Plaintiffs allege Defendant purposefully concealed the lack of a sponsorship agreement with a local company as required under Kuwaiti law. Plaintiffs alleged that “GLS did not obtain the transfer of Plaintiffs’ Kuwaiti sponsorship for A1 Shora as required prior to the termination of the A1 Shora contract on December 5, 2012.” (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 33.) Plaintiffs specifically allege:
• At the time GLS had Plaintiffs sign the 2013 Contract, GLS’s sponsorship contract with A1 Shora had expired, but Plaintiffs [sic] sponsorship had not been transferred from A1 Shora to another Kuwaiti sponsor.
[...]
• At the time GLS had Plaintiffs sign the 2013 Contract, GLS’s employment of Plaintiffs in Kuwait was 'unlawful since GLS was unable to obtain Al Shora’s agreement to continue sponsoring Plaintiffs for GLS or to transfer their sponsorship to another Kuwaiti entity.
• GLS concealed the lack of Kuwaiti sponsorship for Plaintiffs’ employment from Plaintiffs at all times pri- or to Plaintiffs’ execution of the 2013 Contract.
• At the time Plaintiffs were induced to enter into the 2013 Contract they were ignorant of the fact that GLS did not have [sic] required Kuwaiti sponsorship lined up for Plaintiffs.
• The lack of Kuwaiti sponsorship was material and Plaintiffs would not have signed or entered into the 2013 Contract had they been aware that GLS did not have a sponsorship agreement with a Kuwaiti entity that would cover Plaintiffs’ employment under the 2013 Contract.
• GLS knew that Plaintiffs assumed their employment pursuant to the 2013 Contracts would be lawful under Kuwaiti law, including that they would be properly sponsored by a Kuwaiti entity.
[••■]
• Subsequent to when Plaintiffs and GLS entered into the 2013 Contract, A1 Shora turned over the names of GLS’s employees (including Plaintiffs) to Kuwaiti immigration authorities, declared them absent from work, and in violation of their working visas. Consequently Plaintiffs and other Linguists’ work visas were cancelled, and they were placed on Kuwaiti’s [sic] “blacklist” for arrest and/or deportation.
[...]
• In short GLS’s actions and legal dispute with A1 Shora made Plaintiffs and other Linguists fugitives in a foreign country. GLS used Plaintiffs—its own employees—as pawns in its monetary dispute with A1 Sho-ra.
(Id. ¶ 28(a)—28(h), (k)-(m).) Plaintiffs have thus alleged that Defendant intentionally and knowingly failed to disclose a material fact to induce Plaintiffs to sign employment contracts they would have otherwise not signed. This was done, according to Plaintiffs, so that Defendant could continue profiting from Plaintiffs’ translation services. , The Court finds these allegations sufficient to state a claim for fraud under both state substantive law and federal pleading standards. See Lam-berty,
Defendant renews its previous arguments in support of dismissal of the fraud claim. (Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss Mem: at 20.) As before, the Court finds those arguments unpersuasive. (See July 8 Mem. Op. at 44.) Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss the fraud claim is denied.
Count Five—Rescission
In this count, Plaintiffs seek rescission of the employment contracts on grounds of “fraud, overreaching, undue influence, and/or unconseionability.”
As noted earlier, the contracts at issue here are not adhesion contracts, as Plaintiffs could terminate their contracts for any reason and return to the United States to seek other employment. However, Plaintiffs have made out a colorable fraud claim in the procurement of the employment contracts. Therefore, the question remains whether this Court could substantially unwind the transaction through the remedy of rescission. Defendant correctly notes that rescission requires both parties to “disgorge the fruits of the bargain.” (Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss Mem. at 15.) This means Defendant would be required to disgorge Plaintiffs’ services (or the value thereof) and Plaintiffs would be required to disgorge their earnings. Plaintiffs have not addressed their obligations if the contract was rescinded. Though obviously impossible to restore these parties to their pre-employment contract position, Virginia courts recognize that literal restoration is not required. “[B]ut where, on account of the act of the adverse party, complete restitution cannot be had, rescission will not be denied, and the court will, so far as practicable, require the party profiting by the fraud to surrender the benefit he has received in the transaction.” Millboro Lumber Co. v. Augusta Wood Products Corp.,
Here, the Second Amended Complaint provides no guidance as to whether determining the value of Plaintiffs’ interpretation services to the Defendant would be feasible. And it is not for this Court to speculate as to whether such valuation is, in fact, practicable. Since Plaintiffs have not moved this claim from the conceivable to the plausible, Defendant’s motion to dismiss as to this claim will be granted.
Count Six—Promissory Fraud
“‘Because fraud must involve a misrepresentation of a present or a preexisting fact, fraud ordinarily cannot be predicated on unfulfilled promises or statements regarding future events.’ ” Girgis,
In their Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs raise one new allegation. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant “knew that Plaintiffs would not enter the 2013 Contract if [the lack of sponsorship] was disclosed.” (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 110.) This new allegation does nothing to change this Court’s prior analysis of the promissory fraud claim. (July 8 Mem. Op. 45-46.) Therefore, Count 6 will be dismissed.
Count Seven—Breach of Contract
In Virginia, the elements of a breach of contract action are “(1) a legally enforceable obligation of a defendant to a plaintiff; (2) the defendant’s violation or breach of that obligation; and (3) injury or damage to the plaintiff caused by the breach of obligation.” Signature Flight Support Corp. v. Landow Aviation Ltd. Partnership, No. 1:08cv955,
Plaintiffs allege two breaches. First, Plaintiffs contend “GLS, in material breach of the 2013 Contract, failed to pay for Plaintiffs’ transport back home. Instead Plaintiffs paid a minimum of $1,000.00 each, out of their own pockets, to pay for their transport back to the United States.” (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 119) Section 16(c) of the employment contract states “Transportation Expenses—The Employer shall provide return transportation from the Employee’s work location to IRDO [Individual Replacement Deployment Operations] for outprocessing if this Agreement is terminated.” (Phillips Deck, Ex. 1 at 8.) The IRDO is in Indiana. (Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss Mem. at 18.) Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts tending to show Defendant failed to pay for transportation to the IRDO. Furthermore, under the contract Defendant’s only obligation is to provide transportation to the IRDO. After that has been met, any additional travel inside the United States is Plaintiffs’ responsibility. Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for breach of contract for failing to provide transportation. To the extent that Plaintiffs are reasserting Defendant has breached the contract because of delay in providing return transportation, this Court considered and rejected that theory of breach in the July 8 Memorandum Opinion. (July 8 Mem. Op. at 46-47.)
Second, Plaintiffs allege Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs per diem rates and “other benefits promised to them.” (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 120.) Section 3(f) of the contracts states that for “TDY Travel” (temporary duty travel off-base) Plaintiffs “may be entitled to approved per diem rates.” (Phillips Deck, Ex. 1 at 3) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs have not alleged that they made any such TDY Travel. Additionally, “may” indicates that per diem rate for such travel was not an automatic entitlement; thus, it is not clear that they would necessarily receive a per diem had they done any TDY Travel. It is undisputed that the Engility contracts provided per diem benefits. (Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss. Mem. at 18.) However, those contracts are not at issue here.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to allege a claim for breach of contract for failure to pay per diem and other benefits. As both of Plaintiffs’ grounds for breach of contract are insufficient as a matter of law, this Court will dismiss Count 7.
Count Eight—Violation of Kuwaiti Labor Law
Lastly, Plaintiffs allege violations of Kuwaiti labor law regarding overtime, holiday, and vacation pay. (Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 125-28.) Plaintiffs have not alleged any additional facts that would change this Court’s analysis as set forth in the July 8 Memorandum Opinion. Accordingly, this claim fails because, as noted above, the parties have validly contracted to refer to a different body of law—Virginia—to govern disputes concerning the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs’ employment with Defendant. Therefore, the Court will grant Defendant’s motion as to Count 8.
C. GLS’s Motion to Strike Jury Demand
Defendant has moved to strike Plaintiffs’ jury demand, arguing that Plaintiffs have knowingly and intelligently waived their right to jury trial in signing the employment contracts. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(a)(2) states that when a trial by jury is demanded, the case must be docketed as a jury action and a trial on all issues so demanded must be by jury unless “the court, on motion or on its own, finds that on some or all of those issues there is no federal right to jury trial.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 39(a)(2); see Dunkin’ Donuts Franchised Rests. LLC v. Manassas Donut Inc.,
Though the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil cases, courts in this circuit have long recognized that parties to a contract may waive this .right by prior written agreement. See Leasing Serv. Corp. v. Crane,
Applying these factors here, Plaintiffs have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to jury trial.
Second, the placement of the jury waiver provision is conspicuous. The paragraph is written in the same typeface and size as other provisions in the contract. It appears on page eight of twelve under the heading “Governing Law.” The provision is written in unambiguous and clear language. Though the provision is not bolded or italicized, the contract is short and is printed in easy-to-read typeface. See Leasing Serv. Corp.,
Third, the relative bargaining power of the parties weighs in favor of upholding the clause. Plaintiffs argue that “the very nature of the relationship of the Plaintiffs and GLS, as individual employees and large corporate employer, dictates that Plaintiffs were in a substantially weaker bargaining position than GLS.” (Pis.’ Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Strike [Dkt. 123] at 9.) But courts in this circuit have routinely upheld jury waiver and arbitration provisions in employment contracts between individual plaintiffs and corporate defendants. Green v. Zachry Indus., Inc.,
In Taylor v. Republic Services, Judge Lee upheld a jury waiver provision in an employment agreement. No. 1:12— cv00523-GBL-IDD,
Finally, Plaintiffs state that they were “not permitted” to seek legal counsel prior to signing the contracts “as they were told by GLS that not signing would result in arrest.” (Pis.’ Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Strike at 9-10.) Defendant does dispute that Plaintiffs were not afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel prior to signing the agreement. Other courts that considered this factor have concluded that the lack of counsel was harmless error because either the party challenging the waiver was sophisticated or the waiver contained language that advised legal consultation. Dunkin’ Donuts,
This case presents different facts. The jury trial waiver does not contain any language discussing independent legal review and Plaintiffs did not have an opportunity to have an attorney review the agreement. Notwithstanding these facts, the lack of legal counsel does not merit striking the jury waiver provision. Plaintiffs have not put forward any concrete evidence that they lacked sufficient expertise to understand the provision, and Defendant was under no duty to make sure that Plaintiffs fully informed themselves of the jury trial waiver. Sydnor v. Conseco Fin. Serv. Corp.,
Considering all four factors, Plaintiffs knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the jury trial waiver. Plaintiffs argue the jury trial waiver is unenforceable because of fraud, duress, or coercion. This argument fails. A party’s contractual jury trial waiver is generally enforced unless a party alleges that its agreement to waive its jury trial right “was itself induced by fraud.” Terry Phillips Sales, Inc. v. SunTrust Bank, No. 3:13-CV-468,
The jury trial waiver applies to all causes of action in this case. “Jury trial waivers in a contract are to be construed broadly to encompass both contract claims and related tort claims where the causes of action would not exist were it not for the relationship between [the parties], as well as counterclaims whether or not arising from the contract at issue.” Terry Phillips Sales,
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as to Counts 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and will deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as to Counts 1 and 4. The Court will grant Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Jury Demand. An appropriate Order will issue.
Notes
. This Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Judicial Notice of the Engility contracts. (July 8 Mem. Op. at 2 n. 2.) Though Plaintiffs claim they worked for Defendant prior to their arrival in Kuwait in 2012, the Engility contracts plainly provide otherwise. See id.
. The Court may consider Plaintiffs’ 2013 employment contracts with Defendant because the Second Amended Complaint incorporates ■ them by reference. See Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem'l Hosp.,
. Pagination of the contracts is CM/ECF pagination.
. As other jurisdictions have noted, there is little difference between arbitration, forum-selection, and choice-of-law clauses for enforceability purposes. Haynsworth v. The Corp.,
. The Court assumes Plaintiffs have pled this in the alternative to their breach of contract claim. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e) (“Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.”).
. Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs cannot use their Opposition to re-plea’d allegations in the Second Amended Complaint. (Def.’s Resp. to Pis.' Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. 127] at 14-15. In considering a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), courts may consider "documents attached to the complaint, as well as those attached to the motion to dismiss, so long as they are integral to the complaint and authentic.” Bala v. Commonwealth of Virginia Dept. of Conservation and Recreation,
. The relevant provision states "[b]oth parties hereby agree and consent to waive the right to a trial by jury.” (Phillips Decl., Ex. 1 at 8.)
. The letter transmitted with the Engility contract notified Plaintiffs that they had an opportunity to ask questions before signing the contracts. (Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss Am. Compl. [Dkt. 80], Lucas Deck, Ex. 1 at 4) ("If you would like clarification of any required disclosures or obligations please contact the undersigned before signing this offer.”).