IAC/InterActiveCorp. v. Roston

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing on forum non conveniens grounds plaintiffs’ action seeking declaratory, monetary and injunctive relief against defendant-former employee, where, among other things, plaintiffs alleged that defendant had violated certain contractual obligations. Relevant contract contained mandatory forum selection clause designating certain California courts as exclusive venues for litigation of disputes arising out of contract. Dist. Ct. could properly find that forum selection clause applied to all three plaintiffs, especially where plaintiffs had sued under clause’s contract. Moreover, all of plaintiffs’ claims arose out of contract, and forum selection clause was mandatory, where it provided that any dispute “will be heard and determined” before certain California courts. Dist. Ct. could also find that application of forum selection clause best served convenience of parties and interests of justice, where California was adequate and available alternative forum, and where California law governed disputes under contract. Also, Dist. Ct. had no duty to consider plaintiff’s preferred forum given mandatory nature of forum selection clause.