Usdc-Casf

MEMORANDUM **

Octagon hasn’t demonstrated that mandamus relief is warranted. See Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir.1977). Even if the district' court erred in denying the motion to transfer, which we need not decide, the remaining Bauman factors weigh against mandamus relief. Octagon can challenge the district court’s interpretation of the forum-selection clause and denial of the motion to transfer after final judgment. See Wash. Pub. Utils. Grp. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 843 F.2d 319 , 325 (9th Cir.1988). That option might be costly, but we’ve consistently held that litigation costs alone don’t justify *582 mandamus. Id. This case also doesn’t involve an “oft-repeated error” or raise “new and important problems.” Bauman, 557 F.2d at 655 . It presents a routine and fact-intensive question of contract interpretation.

As the dissent suggests, the forum-selection clause may well “preclude[] proper venue in any federal court.” But we can hardly say the district court committed clear error by failing to dismiss on that basis when Octagon specifically abandoned a request for that relief below and instead opted to seek transfer. Nothing we say precludes Octagon from…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent.

The district court clearly erred. The relevant forum-selection clause sets forth the “location for any legal proceedings” associated with disputes arising from the agreement. The clause provides that “[t]he location for any legal proceedings shall be Fairfax County, Virginia, USA.” (Emphasis added.) That wording unambiguously reflects the parties’ agreement that venue is mandatory for any action filed by a plaintiff against Octagon and that the proper venue is in Fairfax County, Virginia.

The forum-selection clause can be considered ambiguous, but it is not ambiguous in the way that the district court described. The only ambiguity pertains to the proper Virginia forum — state or federal — in which a dispute arising from the agreement may take place. The fact that no federal courthouse is physically located in Fairfax County does not compel a conclusion that the parties’ venue clause excludes federal courts. See Simonoff v. Expedia, Inc., 643 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir.2011) (noting that federal “judicial districts are in fact defined by counties”). But, resolving that ambiguity against the drafter, see Doe I v. AOL LLC, 552 F.3d 1077 , 1082 n.…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 27 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re OCTAGON, INC., No. 14-72523

D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01417-CRB

OCTAGON, INC.,

Petitioner, MEMORANDUM*

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF

CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO,

Respondent,

CLIFF LABOY, Jr.,

Real Party in Interest.

In re OCTAGON, INC., No. 14-72641

D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01416-CRB

OCTAGON, INC.,

Petitioner,

v.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. page

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF

CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO,

Respondent,

DOUGLAS HENDRICKSON,

Real Party in Interest.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 14, 2015 San Francisco, California

Before: KOZINSKI and GRABER, Circuit Judges and PONSOR,** Senior District Judge.

Octagon hasn’t…