WILLIAM Q. HAYES, District Judge.
The matter before this Court is the motion to change venue filed by Defendant Darren D. Chaker. (ECF No. 15).
On August 29, 2016, Plaintiffs Scott A. McMillan and the McMillan Law Firm, APC initiated this action by filing a complaint against Defendants Darren D. Chaker, an individual and as trustee of Platinum Holdings Group Trust, dba Counter Forensics; Nicole Chaker, an individual and as trustee of Nicole Chaker Trust One; Vania Chaker, an individual and as trustee of Vania Chaker Trust One. (ECF No. 1). The complaint alleges causes of action for (1) Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); (2) Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); and (3) civil extortion. Id.
On November 14, 2016, Defendant Darren D. Chaker filed the motion to change venue. (ECF No. 15). On December 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion to change venue. (ECF No. 22). On December 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion to change venue.
On December 5, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against Defendants Darren D. Chaker, an individual and as trustee of Platinum Holdings Groups Trust, dba Counter Forensics; Nicole Chaker, an individual, and as trustee of The Nicole Chaker Revocable Living Trust, U/A dated August 18, 2010; Vania Chaker, an individual and as beneficiary of the Island Revocable Trust under Declaration of Trust dated June 2, 2015; and Marcus Mack, as trustee of The Island Revocable Trust under Declaration of Trust dated June 2, 2015. (ECF No. 25). The amended complaint alleges the same three causes of action as the original complaint.
II. Contentions of the Parties
Plaintiff contends that he did not enter into a contractual relationship with Defendant by viewing the website because he obtained no benefit and provided no "unambiguous manifestation of assent." (ECF No. 27 at 9). Plaintiff contends that any alleged contract cannot be enforced because it lacks consideration and fails to identify parties to the contract. Id. at 9-10. Plaintiff contends that Defendant provides no evidence of the contents of the TOU on the specific days Plaintiff visited the website. Id. at 10. Plaintiff contends the website did not provide sufficient notice of the TOU. Id. at 12-14. Plaintiff contends that the forum selection clause cannot be enforced because Plaintiff did not sue Defendant on the contract but rather alleges causes of action sounding in tort. Id. at 11.
In support of his motion to change venue, Defendant filed a declaration and multiple exhibits.
Id. Defendant states that according to a tracking log on the site, Scott A. McMillan or someone using his IP address accessed the blog in question multiple times on December 8, 2014 and "thus, had notice of the TOU." Id. at 3. Defendant states, "On December 8, 2014, . . . I emailed Mr. McMillan notifying him of the TOU and provided a direct link to the same. The same day I noticed Mr. McMillan accessed the direct link to the TOU." Id. Defendant states that he took a photograph of the blog on December 8, 2014 and filed a true and correct copy of the photograph as Exhibit D. Id. at 3-4. Defendant states that Plaintiff or someone using his IP address accessed the blog on multiple occasions in 2014 and 2015. Id. Defendant includes as Exhibit A a copy of the TOU, which states,
Id. at 10-11.
Plaintiff filed a declaration with his response in opposition stating, "I have never denied looking at that site. . . . My sole reason for looking at the site scott-mcmillan-law.blogspot.com was that I was aware that Mr. Chaker had posted false, defamatory and scandalous statements about me and my law practice on it. It was necessary for me to look at the site to protect and defend my reputation, and that of The McMillan Law Firm." (ECF No. 27-1 at 2). Plaintiff states that in viewing the site, he did not intend to and did not enter a commercial or contractual relationship, did not intend to and did not obtain any benefit from looking at this site, did not use any services of, obtain any information from, or initiate any application within the website, and did not intend to or have any reason to believe he was binding himself to the TOU. Id.
28 U.S.C. section 1404(a) provides, "For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). "[A] forum-selection clause may be enforced by a motion to transfer under § 1404(a) . . ." Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Texas, 134 S.Ct. 568, 575 (2013). District courts apply federal law to the interpretation of forum selection clauses. Manetti Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci Am., Inc., 858 F.2d 509, 513 (9th Cir.1988). There is a strong presumption in favor of enforcing valid forum selection clauses. See M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 17 (1972). "Forum selection clauses are prima facie valid, and are enforceable absent a strong showing by the party opposing the clause `that enforcement would be unreasonable or unjust, or that the clause [is] invalid for such reasons as fraud or overreaching.'" Manetti-Farrow, 858 F.2d at 514-15 (quoting Bremen, 407 U.S. at 18). "Bremen mandates enforcement of such clauses absent a showing of fraud, undue influence, overweening bargaining power, or such serious inconvenience in litigating in the selected forum as to deprive the party seeking to avoid enforcement of a meaningful day in court." Spradlin v. Lear Siegler-Management Servs. Co., Inc., 926 F.2d 865, 868 (9th Cir. 1991). "[F]orum selection clauses can be equally applicable to contractual and tort causes of action." Manetti-Farrow, 858 F.2d at 514. "Whether a forum selection clause applies to tort claims depends on whether resolution of the claims relates to interpretation of the contract." Id.
"While new commerce on the Internet has exposed courts to many new situations, it has not fundamentally changed the principles of contract." Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 763 F.3d 1171, 1175 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Register.com, Inc. V. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393, 403 (2d Cir. 2004). "One such principle is the requirement that `mutual manifestation of assent, whether by written or spoken word or by conduct is the touchstone of contract.'" Id. (citing Specht v. Netscape Comm'ns Corp., 306 F.3d 917, 29 (2d Cir. 2002)). In a browsewrap agreement, a "website's terms and conditions of use are generally posted on the website via a hyperlink at the bottom of the screen." Id. at 1176. A browsewrap agreement does not require the user to expressly manifest assent to the terms and conditions; a user assents to the terms and conditions in a browsewrap agreement by using the website. Id. "Because no affirmative action is required by the website user to agree to the terms of contract other than his or her use of the website, the determination of the validity of the browsewrap contract depends on whether the user has actual or constructive knowledge of a website's terms and conditions." Id. (quoting Van Tassell v. United Mktg. Grp., LLC, 795 F.Supp.2d 770, 790 (N.D. Ill. 2011)). Where there is no evidence of actual knowledge of a browsewrap agreement, "the validity of the browsewrap agreement turns on whether the website puts a reasonably prudent used on inquiry notice of the terms in the contract." Id. at 1177.
In this case, Plaintiff alleges three causes of action which relate in part to material posted on Defendant Chaker's website, scott-mcmillan-law.blogspot.com. The website contains a TOU in the form of a browsewrap agreement, which seeks to require website users to bring any federal lawsuit relating to the website in the Central District. In his declaration, Plaintiff concedes that he had actual knowledge of the TOU of the website. While courts often consider a browsewrap agreement enforceable if a website user has actual knowledge of the agreement, the facts of this case are distinguishable because the purported agreement containing the forum selection clause is unsupported by consideration.
A contract must be supported by valid consideration. Cal. Civ. Code § 1550.
Defendant has not established that there is a valid, enforceable forum selection clause between the parties requiring that this matter be litigated in the Central District and has provided no other grounds for the transfer. The Court concludes that there are no grounds to support transfer of this case to the Central District.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to change venue is DENIED. (ECF No. 15).