Civil Practice – Venue – Contract – Forum Selection Clause – Franchise

Listen to this article

The parties’ franchise agreement includes a valid, mandatory forum selection clause, selecting South Carolina as the forum for litigating disputes; furthermore, transfer of this action from South Carolina to Kansas would only shift the burden of inconvenience from defendants to plaintiff.

The court denies defendants’ motions to dismiss for improper venue and to transfer venue. However, considering plaintiff’s concession that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over defendant Marilyn Rebori, the court grants defendants’ motion to dismiss Rebori from this action. The court also dismisses plaintiff’s claim of interference with contract, which was asserted against Rebori.

A substantial part of the events or omissions that gave rise to plaintiff’s claims occurred in the District of South Carolina (the District), including the negotiation of the franchise agreement, the nonpayment of certain royalties and fees required to be paid to plaintiff in the District, and defendants’ letter purporting to terminate the franchise agreement. Accordingly, the District is a proper venue for this action.

ARCpoint Financial Group, LLC v. Blue Eyed Bull Investment Corp. (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-123-18, 15 pp.) (A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr., J.) 6:18-cv-00235; Emily Irene Bridges and Natalma McKnew for plaintiff; Christopher Hampton, Kirsten Elena Small and Patricia Anne Mullins-Freeman for defendants. D.S.C.