CENTIMARK CORPORATION v. JACOBSEN, No. 2:2011cv01137 - Document 66 (W.D. Pa. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION: Defendant's motion to tranfer venue 19 is denied for the reasons stated herein. Signed by Judge William L. Standish on 11/30/2011. (cs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CENTIMARK CORPORATION, Plaintiff, vs. Civil Action No. 11-1137 JON A. JACOBSEN, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending before the Court Jacobsen ("JacobsenH), is a motion by Defendant Jon A. seeking to transfer venue of this matter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, pursuant to "Motion. H) U.S.C. 28 1404 (a) § (Doc. No. 19, Jacobsen's main argument is that the transfer would benefit the parties and witnesses who primarily live and work in the State of Georgia. nationwide primarily roofing on the CentiMark Corporation contractor, forum opposes selection the clause of ("CentiMarkH), transfer, a 1996 a relying agreement between itself and Jacobsen which provides that any legal action arising out of federal court the agreement would be brought sitting in Washington County , in a state Pennsylvania. the reasons which follow, Jacobsen's motion is denied. or For I. BACKGROUND The factual and procedural history of this case is set out in detail in the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated November 29, 2011, denying CentiMark's motion for order and/or preliminary injunction. a temporary restraining Suffice it to say that on September 5, 1996, as a condition of his initial employment with CentiMark, Jacobsen signed an employment agreement ("the 1996 Agreement") which contained the following provision: Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonweal th of Pennsylvania and Employee [i. e. , Jacobsen] hereby irrevocably submits to the personal jurisdiction of the courts sitting in Washington County, Pennsylvania in any action or proceeding arising out of, or relating to, this Agreement . . Employee further irrevocably waives any objection which he/she now or hereafter may have to the laying of venue of any action or proceeding arising out of, or relating, to this Agreement brought in said courts. Jurisdiction and venue of all causes of action arising out of, or related to, this Employment Agreement shall be exclusively vested in the state or federal courts in Washington County, Pennsylvania. (Complaint, Exh. A, § 7.06, emphasis in original.) The 1996 "IMPORTANT review Agreement NOTICE" the content which of included "strongly the a cover recommended" agreement with his page that entitled Jacobsen attorney. The choice of law and venue provision was explicitly identified as one of five items to which he would be bound upon signing the agreement. The copy provided to the Court shows that Jacobsen did, in ct, initial each provision in recognition of the legal 2 obligations set out therein. Moreover, Jacobsen's signature appears on the 1996 Agreement under a sentence in bold capital letters stating "I HAVE NOT BEEN THREATENED OR COERCED IN ANY WAY AND AGREE THAT I HAVE BEEN ADVISED TO SEEK LEGAL COUNSEL." There is no evidence before the Court indicating Jacobsen sought legal advice before he signed. 1 Jacobsen left CentiMark's employ in 2001, other companies in the roofing industry, hired in 2004; with the again, company he entered ("the agreement specifically the Agreement, 1996 and was ultimately re Agreement.") incorporated Articles and there worked for three into an employment Employment were no I 1996 signed on resigned employment Agreement August from with was 30, attached yet on another the July 27, company in second through VII modifications Employment (Complaint, 2004. CentiMark to agreement The choice of law and venue provision in Section 7.06. the whether Exh. 2011, the A.) to of the A copy of Agreement Jacobsen and accepted roofing industry, Nations Roof South, LLC. CentiMark filed suit in this Court on September 8, 2011, alleging that Jacobsen had breached the non-competition and non disclosure provisions ("the restrictive covenants") of the Employment Agreement by working for Nations Roof South and was While CentiMark's motion for a engaging in unfair competition. 1 Jacobsen has not argued that these are not his initials or signature. 3 temporary pending, restraining Superior declaratory broad, and/or preliminary injunction was and before the parties could agree on a date for the related hearing, the order Jacobsen Court led suit on September 19, of Fulton judgment that the violate Georgia Corporation, law CA seeking Georgia, in a restrictive covenants are overly and therefore are unenforceable. CentiMark County, 2011, Georgia (Doc. No. public No.1, 11-1270, Exh. "the policy, A, and Jacobsen v. Georgia Action.") CentiMark timely removed the suit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia pursuant 28 U.S.C. 1441(a) and Jacobsen diversity did not after the first jurisdiction obj ect to under removal. 28 On U.S.C. September § § 1332. 21, 2011, day of the hearing in this matter had already taken place, Jacobsen filed a motion for a temporary restraining order in the Georgia proceeding with the Action, lawsuit seeking filed in to bar this CentiMark Court. from Before the Honorable Timothy C. Batten could rule on that motion, CentiMark filed a motion case to this to dismiss or , jurisdiction. alternatively, (Georgia to Action, transfer Doc. No. the 10.) Judge Batten denied the motion to dismiss but granted the motion to transfer pursuant selection clause (Id., to the "first in Section 7.06 Doc. No. 14.) of On November 7, 4 filed the rule" and the forum Employment Agreement. 2011, at the request of the parties, the Georgia Action was consolidated for all purposes with the action originally brought by CentiMark in this Court. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW; APPLICABLE LAW Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. parties and witnesses, court may division transfer where in the any it civil might energy, "[f]or the convenience of interest action have transferring venue under § time, 1404 (a), § been 1404 (a) of to justice, any other brought." a district district or purpose of The "is to prevent the waste of and money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense." Dusen v. Barrack, 612, 616 (1964) district court is vested with a * 4 (W . D. Pa. Aug. Stockment, showing 488 need a F.2d for Jacobsen. (3d C See 8, 754, transfer Jumara v. (3d is discretion." Dist. LEXIS qu 0 tin g 2 0 0 7), 756 wide 2007 U.S. CentiMark Corp. v. Saffold, CA No. 07-342, 57 7 72 , (internal quotation In determining if transfer of venue is appropriate, omitted. ) "the 376 U. S. Van Cir. on 1973). The the movant, State Farm Ins. Inc. v. burden of P I urn T r e e , Co., here Defendant 55 F.3d 873, 879 . 1995). A court considering a motion to transfer venue performs a two-part analysis. district to proper brought which First, the the movant jurisdiction and venue, in the transferee court seeks i.e., district 5 must to decide transfer could the in the whether the case the has case have been first instance. Lawrence 1999). v. Xerox 56 F. Supp.2d 442, 450-451 (D. N.J. Second, the court applies a number of public and private factors to determine which forum is most appropriate to consider the case. Id. The private interests to be considered include (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (2) the defendant's preferred forum, (3) where the claim arose, (4) the "convenience of the parties as indicated by their relative physical and financial condition," (5) the convenience of the witnesses to the extent they are unavailable for trial in one forum or the other, and ( 6) Jumara, the location of books and they will be unavailable forum. 55 F.3d at 879-880; records in the and whether alternative see also In re Amendt, No. 05-2458, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 3944, *8 (3d Cir. Feb. 16, 2006). The public interests include (1) the enforceability of the judgment, (2) practical considerations that would make trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive, the (3) the relative administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting from court congestion, ( 4 ) the "local interest controversies at home, " in deciding local (5) the public policies of the fora, and (6) the familiarity of the trial judge with applicable state law in diversity cases. 6 the Jumara, id. Amendt, id. Not all of these factors will apply in every instance and the court's based on analysis the v. be "flexible and facts of each II "unique Supp.2d at 450; Wm. 6 F. should Supp.2d 283, Ricoh Corp., case. H. McGee & Co. v. 288 N.J. (0. 487 U.S. 22, Lawrence, 56 F. United Arab Shipping Co., citing Stewart Org., 1997), 29-30 individualized," (1988). Inc. The movant has the burden of showing that the balance of private and public factors weighs strongly in favor of transfer. 330 U.S. 508 SOl, (1947) favor of the defendant, rarely disturbed l f ) be Stayhealthy.com, 275 ("unless Gulf Oil Co. the balance v. is Gilbert, strongly in the plaintiff's choice of forum should Measurement ; F. Supp.2d Inc. v. 2003) ("a alities 638, 640 (E.O. motion to transfer is not to be liberally granted. Pa. If) In a case such as this where a binding contract between the parties consider analysis. contains the a effect Stewart forum-selection forum of Org., clause. selection that 487 clause, clause U.S. . will at be a the as one 29 ("The court factor is in presence significant factor to its of a that figures centrally in the district court's calculus" in resolving a motion brought under § 1404(a).) Forum selection clauses are "prima facie valid and should be enforced unless enforcement is shown by the circumstances. If resisting party to be 'unreasonable' under the MIS Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 7 10, 15 (1972). Such a clause is deemed "unreasonable" when it has been procured by "fraud or overreaching," or if the party opposing transfer shows that "trial in the contractual forum will be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that he will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court." Id. at 15, 18. III. ANALYSIS A. Defendant's Arguments In support of the Motion, Jacobsen has filed declaration in which he avers the following: He lives and works in the State of Georgia; He has no contacts with the Commonwealth Pennsylvania in his individual capacity; of John T. Godwin, the Executive Vice President of CentiMark ("Godwin"), who verified the complaint filed by CentiMark in this action and to whom Jacobsen personally resigned in July 2011 lives and works in the Northern District of Georgia; According to information on its website, although headquartered in Pennsylvania, CentiMark is the largest commercial roofing company in North America with business in every state and offices located all over the country, including the Northern District of Georgia where Jacobsen and Godwin were employed; Godwin is likely to be CentiMark's chief witness since he attested to the facts in the Complaint, was the person to whom Jacobsen resigned, and is familiar with the business of Nations Roof South; Jacobsen's immediate supervisor who is also potential witness, lives and works in Colorado; I 8 a a Nations Roof South, from whom records and witnesses are likely to be sought by CentiMark, is located in Georgia; No witnesses appear to be located in Pennsylvania; and It would be a financial hardship for him to litigate in Pennsylvania due to the expenses of air travel, hotel, and rental car. (Motion, Exh. A, c:nc:n 1, 10-11, 13-15, 19, 23.) In his brief in support of the Motion, Jacobsen argues that the only reason CentiMark filed suit against him in this Court is the forum selection clause in the 1996 Agreement. (Defendant's Brief in Support of Motion Transfer Venue, 20, Relying on the outcome of two other "Def.'s Brief," at 1.) sui ts filed by CentiMark in this transfer of the case clearly warranted for 1404(a) to the all forum, Northern three Jacobsen contends that District reasons and the CentiMark Corp. stated in v. interests of Saffold, justice. supra (Id. (Lancaster, and an unpublished opinion in CentiMark Corp. M.J., of Georgia 28 is U. S. C. § the convenience of the parties, the convenience of the wi tnesses, Corp., Doc. No. CA No. at Doc. 08-593 No. 41, (reports and Oct. 2008, 6, at J.) v. 2008, as affirmed by Standish, J. at Doc. No. No. 49, citing ("Saffold"), Tecta America recommendations and Doc. 1-2, by 45, Bissoon, Nov. 11, Dec. 18, 2008) ("Tecta America.") In both cases cited by Jacobsen, Saffold and the individual defendants in Tecta America, Vincent Vitek and Patrick Hansen, 9 had entered into employment agreements with CentiMark containing the exact same forum selection and choice of law provisions as Section 7.06 of Lancaster Jacobsen's that reasoned CentiMark had offices events giving defendant, forum, any, rise his transfer was In Saffold, appropriate in Illinois as well as to the claims supervisor, and because Pennsylvania, the in occurred most Judge the Illinois, witnesses were in that and trying the case in Illinois would cause minimal, inconvenience to magistrate CentiMark, but great inconvenience ( De f . 's Br i e f a t 2 - 3 . ) expense to Saffold. the 1996 Agreement. judge followed the if and In Tecta Ameri reasoning of Saffold and similarly found that the Jumara factors weighed heavily in favor of transfer to the Northern District of Illinois where Tecta America had its headquarters and Mr. Vitek resided. 2 (See Tecta America, that Court's Doc. No. analysis 41, at should 6-17.) similarly Jacobsen result argues in transfer this of this voluntarily and case to Georgia. B. Plaintiff's Arguments Plaintiff expressly employment consented agreements argues to the with that forum Jacobsen selection CentiMark, not clause once, but in his twice. Judge Bissoon declined to sever the claims against Mr. Hansen and send them to the Northern District of California where he resided, in large part because the complaint contained a civil conspiracy claim against all three defendants. (Tecta America, Doc. No. 41 at 6, n. 8.) That reasoning, of course, does not apply to this case. 2 10 (Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to Defendant's Motion, 29, "Plf.'s Brief," at 1-4.) motion should between the appropriate any be denied parties CentiMark contends that Jacobsen's because are in this Court, legitimate Specifically, basis Doc. No. valid the and employment enforceable, and Jacobsen has for the agreements failed transfer. venue is to proffer (Id. at 4 -5. ) CentiMark argues that Jacobsen has failed to show that the forum selection clause is "unreasonable" as that term is analyzed in M S Bremen inasmuch as he has not pointed to any aspects of fraud or overreaching by CentiMark when he signed the employment agreements in 1996 and 2004, the "IMPORTANT NOTICE." Moreover, contrary to Jacobsen's litany of facts purporting to show that venue more appropriate in which would support Georgia, the despite the warnings in there is more convenient and are conclusion that countervailing venue is at least convenient and appropriate in this Court, specifically: Jacobsen was well remunerated at CentiMark and, based on the letter from Nations Roof South offering him the posi tion of President and an equity ownership in the company, is almost equally well paid in his new job; Air travel between Pittsburgh and Atlanta is convenient, relatively inexpensive, and will be relatively rare, given the nature of the dispute and the availability of telephone conferences, videoconferencing, electronic filing of court documents, and other technologies; Jacobsen has already engaged competent counsel in Pi t tsburgh who have vigorously defended his interests in this Court; 11 facts as The evidence tends to show that Jacobsen's counsel are being compensated by Nations Roof South, further reducing the financial burden on him personally, and he has not claimed it would be "financially devastating U for him to litigate here; and Jacobsen has not claimed any health, family, professional or other reasons which would prevent him from litigating in this forum. (Plf.'s Brief at 6-8.) CentiMark goes on to argue that not only is venue proper in this Court, Jacobsen explicitly waived the defense of improper venue by signing the two employment agreements. the facts of this case are more more recent decision In addition, similar to those of another, from this Court which denied a motion to transfer venue than they are to Saffold and Tecta America. CentiMark Corp. v. Lavine, the Honorable Arthur considered the Jumara factors and concluded that In J. Schwab they, coupled with a forum selection clause identical to that in the JacobsenCentiMark agreements, weighed in favor of retaining jurisdiction rather than transferring the case to Michigan as Lavine argued CentiMark v. should be done. See U.S. Dist. 78911 LEXIS (W.D. Pa. Lavine, July 20, CA No. 2011) 11-757, 2011 ("Lavine. )3 U (Plf.'s Brief at 8-12.) 3 A significant difference between the arguments raised by the defendants in these cases is that Lavine argued he was not subject to personal jurisdiction in this court and that the employment agreements were contracts of adhesion. See Lavine, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78911 at *7-*10. The Lavine court rejected both propositions. Although 12 C. Discussion and Conclusion As transfer noted venue conclude that above, engages a in the Northern court a considering two-step a analysis. District of Georgia the action was transferee has proper district transferee under district could over the defendants." LLC, CA No. Apr. 14, 2010). of 28 venue U.S.C. have was § Dist. first a A potential if, when in the (ii) and exercised personal 2010 U.S. to fact, the proper 1391 Days Inns Worldwide, 09-2275, in jurisdiction and venue " (i ) commenced, We is, forum in which this suit could have been brought. transferee district motion jurisdiction Inc. v. Ram Lodging, LEXIS 37790, *8 (D. N.J. Where jurisdiction is based solely on diversity citizenship and statutory minimum an (as amount is the in controversy case here), greater CentiMark than the could have brought this action in the Northern District of Georgia inasmuch as Jacobsen, and thus the only defendant, the federal jurisdiction over him. "Venue will be courts is a resident of that district could See 28 U.S.C. considered have § exercised personal 1391(a). proper in a diversity action where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the Hotels, claim Inc. occurred v. Perry in the transferee Developers, Inc., forum." CA No. Travelodge 11-1464, 2011 Jacobsen mentions in passing that he has no contacts with Pennsylvania in his "individual capacity," this argument is never developed. 13 U.S. U. Dist. LEXIS 134478, s.c. 1391 (a) (2). § claims herein was Roof South, *10 (D. The N.J. Nov. primary Jacobsen's act event 22, 2011), giving citing 28 rise of going to work for an alleged competitor of CentiMark, to the Nations in a position which CentiMark claims violates the non-compete provision of his Employment Agreement and raises the substantial likelihood that he has, or secrets or will, other non-disclosure misappropriate confidential provision of confidential information that in CentiMark of the According to agreement. violation trade the Complaint, this act took place in the Atlanta area, and thus the Northern District of Georgia is a proper venue where the claim could have been originally brought. Analysis of the Jumara 1. second phase of the analysis factors: Turning to the and setting aside for the moment the effect of the forum selection clause in the 1996 Agreement, we conclude the following with regard to the Jumara private factors. The parties' choices of forum counter-balance each other in that Plaintiff seeks to litigate in the Western District of Pennsylvania and Defendant in the Northern District of Georgia. As noted Georgia, where above, the claim arose, Jacobsen was working at to the a great time he extent, in terminated his employment with CentiMark and went to work for Nations Roof South, also located in Georgia, thereby allegedly violating the 14 restrictive covenants of his Employment Agreement. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of transfer. The parties favor relative is a physical neutral of transfer. and or, factor financial at condition best, CentiMark argues weighs that of slightly the "facts Nations expenses, but provides no evidence to support that claim. South is paying Jacobsen's in strongly suggest H Roof the litigation As a nationwide corporation with purported profits of more than $404 million in 2009 prepared financially anywhere in the ~ (Motion, than United 10), CentiMark almost any States. To would individual the best be to of better litigate the Court's knowledge, there are no physical restraints on the parties which would prevent litigating in either forum. The convenience of Jacobsen argues that he, witnesses Godwin, is also a neutral factor. and employees of Nations Roof South who may be called as witnesses are all located in Georgia. On the other hand, chief executive resources example, officer staff about CentiMark's senior management, (who the and could content the be of company's called the upon employment located at its headquarters in Canonsburg, event Jacobsen's witness, immediate supervisor including the legal to and testify, for agreements) are Pennsylvania. would human be called In the as a appearing in either forum would be essentially neutral inasmuch as he is currently located in Colorado. 15 There is no evidence any potential witness would be unavailable for trial in either forum. Jumara, See 55 F.3d at 879 (this factor is relevant "only to the extent that the witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora.") (Emphasis added by the Court.) Similarly, likely found Nations Roof nothing has unavailable books in either South been in and are records CentiMark forum, while those likely to in offered either of to forum show or be that that are of more Jacobsen Georgia. such them forum would be "unduly burdensome or expensive." and However, records producing than would in be either See Days Inns Worldwide, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37790 at *19. Turning to the public factors, we note have given little attention to these issues. addressed the issue of the degree favor would be enforceable. that the parties First, neither has to which a judgment in its We independently find no reason to believe this would be a significant factor and therefore give it no weight. As easy, for the practical considerations making the expeditious or inexpensive, In short, this factor is again neutral. whether the litigation proceeds in Pennsylvania or in Georgia, someone is going to have to travel somewhere. with litigation CentiMark that teleconferencing, electronic filing are now ubiquitous. 16 We agree video-depositions, and Thus we find this factor has taken on less importance than it might have been given twenty years ago. Neither party addresses the question of court congestion in this District as Georgia and compared to that the Court in the Northern independently knows of District of no reason the litigation would not proceed as quickly in one forum as in the other. We there re give this factor no weight. By contrast, the "local interest" factor weighs somewhat in favor of transfer correctly that contracts to executed controversy Georgia. Pennsylvania in itself is has this Although an interest Commonwealth local to CentiMark in are Georgia. That argues seeing that enforced, the is, Jacobsen worked for CentiMark in Georgia and still lives there. Were the non-compete provision of the Employment Agreement be enforced, he would be unable to continue to work for Nations Roof South, also located in Georgia. U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37790 See at Days *20, Inns Worldwide, concluding which was the center of the parties' local interest in the outcome, that Inc., the 2010 district dispute had the stronger even though both forums had an interest in deciding the breach of contract claim. As not for the public policy addressed this issue. factor, The again, Court the parties concludes that have both Pennsylvania and Georgia would logically have an equal interest in protecting the legal rights 17 of its residents. In such situations, courts may conclude that the forum found to be "the center of gravity of the actions giving rise to the litigation" has the greater interest. Perry Devel2ers, 134478, *21 Georgia would Inc., CA No. (D. N.J. Nov. have e.g., Travelodge Hotels, See, the 22, 11-1464, 2011). greater 2011 U.S. Inc. v. Dist. LEXIS Following this reasoning, interest and thus this factor favors transfer. We public reach factor, applicable that the the the state opposite familiarity law. agreement result with of the regard trial to court the final with the The forum selection clause also states to be is "governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. fI Even if this clause did not appear in the 1996 Agreement or were found to be unenforceable, a Georgia court would be required to apply Pennsylvania law to the claims brought in this suit. Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at 639 [under 1404(a}), § See ("where the defendants seek transfer the transferee district court must be obligated to apply the state law that would have been applied if there had been no change of venue. ") the Northern District of Georgia, familiar with Pennsylvania law, Wi th all due respect to this Court particularly is probably more the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act under which Count II of the Complaint is brought. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of jurisdiction in the Western District of Pennsylvania. 18 retaining in Taken slightly toto, we conclude that but by no means "strongly" the Jumara factors weigh - in favor of transfer to Georgia. 2. federal than The court state sitting law contractual effect in forum of in selection diversity must determining selection While not dispositive, forum the the apply effect clause. to Jumara, clause: federal be 55 A rather given F.3d at to a 877. the "parties' private expression of their venue preferences" in a forum selection clause should be given "substantial consideration." the party opposing the Id. at 880. Under forum selection clause federal law, in an otherwise enforceable contract must show that (I) that it is the result of fraud or overreaching, (2) that enforcement would violate a strong public policy of the forum, or (3) that enforcement would in the particular circumstances of the case result in litigation in a jurisdiction so seriously inconvenient as to be unreasonable. MoneyGram Payment Sys. v. Consorcio Oriental, S.A., No. 01-4386, 2003 U.S. Coastal App. Steel LEXIS 9875, Corp. v. *5 (3d Cir. Tilghman May 21, Wheelabrator, 2003), Ltd., quoting 709 F. 2d 190, 202 (3d Cir. 1983). Jacobsen has not argued that Section 7.06 of the employment agreement between himself and CentiMark, once but twice, was the result of to which he agreed not fraud or overreaching. He does not discuss the question of whether enforcing the clause, 19 thereby compelling him to litigate in this Court, any strong public policy. claim that because he 1 In ct, would violate his main argument s and works in Georgia, far more convenient for him to litigate" there. He also argues, rather disingenuously in reason Courts." he rel to expect , (Id. s 10.) be be summoned him to do so. of the two that he "had [Pennsylvania's] In his brief in support of his motion, but ignores the more He has conceded in his brief that it would "financially Pennsylvania, would be " light into on Saffold and Tecta America, recent Lavine case. not to the (Motion,' 2.) employment agreements he signed in 1996 and 2004, no is devastating" for him to 1 igate in only that it would "work a financial hardship" on (Def.'s Brief at 3.) that "all of the relevant witnesses, located in Georgia." His only other argument is not just most of them, are We have already pointed out to the (Id.) contrary that the CentiMark chief executive officer, as well as the company's human resources and legal of staff who figured to some degree in the events leading up to this litigation, are all located in Pennsylvania. We conclude that Jacobsen has not come forth with facts which would show he would be effectively denied his day in court if he were to litigate in this forum; already. At would be more best, he has convenient argued in fact, that litigation to him and that 20 he has done so he might in Georgia incur some personal These expense are were he insufficient forced to show that to litigate litigating "gravely difficult and inconvenient." 18. Moreover, Jacobsen should have in Pennsylvania. here MIS Bremen, anticipated would be 407 U.S. these at factors when he signed the 1996 Agreement committing him to proceed in Western Pennsylvania. 99-1684, 1999 ) 1999 U.S. (where provision the Dutch foreseen an giving Dist. Fuller Co. LEXIS 16460, agreement between Pennsylvania defendant the See company inconvenience of courts located v. RDM Tech. *9-*10 the (E.D. in 15, contained a jurisdiction," Rotterdam litigating there CA No. Pa. Oct. parties "exclusive BV, at should the have time it entered into the agreement.) Defendant's Motion is An denied. appropriate Order follows. November )IJ _7 _ , _ 2011 / / ~ , " - ,ti.0vL ;:., Ji;,;t.;~' William L. Standish United States District Judge 21
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
