Krayzman v. iStockphoto LP
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:24-cv-03086
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Krayzman v. iStockphoto, Judge Chhabria denied arbitration and dismissed the case without prejudice because Alberta was the required forum.
Larion Krayzman’s case against iStockphoto LP was dismissed without prejudice on forum non conveniens grounds. He may file the case in Canada, but he was not given leave to file an amended complaint in this court.
What happened
In Krayzman v. iStockphoto LP, Larion Krayzman sued iStockphoto LP, and iStockphoto asked the court to require arbitration or dismiss the case. The court found that Krayzman did not agree to the License Agreement because its arbitration clause was not reasonably disclosed when he subscribed.
The court found that Krayzman did agree to the Terms of Use, which required disputes to be brought exclusively in courts in Alberta. Krayzman argued at the hearing that the Terms of Use did not cover his claims, but the court found that he had forfeited that argument by not raising it in his written opposition.
Judge Vince Chhabria denied iStockphoto’s motion to compel arbitration and granted its motion to dismiss. The case was dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds, without prejudice to filing it in Canada, and Krayzman was not allowed to file an amended complaint in that court.
The detailed version
- Krayzman v. iStockphoto LP · No. 3:24-cv-03086
- Vince Chhabria
- Oct. 3, 2024
Background
Larion Krayzman sued iStockphoto LP. iStockphoto moved to compel arbitration under an arbitration clause in its License Agreement and moved to dismiss the case.
Arbitration Agreement
The court denied the motion to compel arbitration. It held that Krayzman did not agree to the License Agreement because the subscription page did not provide reasonably conspicuous notice of that agreement. When Krayzman subscribed, he clicked an “I agree” button next to a statement saying that joining iStock meant accepting the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. The License Agreement was not listed on that page and would be visible only after a user followed links to other pages. The court concluded that a reasonable consumer would understand the button to accept only the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, not the License Agreement.
Forum Selection Clause
The court stated that Krayzman undisputedly consented to the Terms of Use. That agreement included a mandatory forum selection clause requiring “any claims or disputes whatsoever arising hereunder” to be brought in the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of courts in Alberta, along with a choice-of-law provision. The court rejected Krayzman’s argument that the clause conflicted with other agreements because the License Agreement did not apply and the Privacy Policy’s permissive arbitration clause did not conflict with the Terms of Use’s mandatory forum requirement.
At the hearing, Krayzman argued that his claims were not covered by the Terms of Use. The court held that he forfeited that argument by failing to raise it in his opposition. The court noted that deciding the governing law for that issue could present a complicated question, but it did not address that question on the merits.
Disposition
Because the court found a valid forum selection clause covering Krayzman’s claims, it granted iStockphoto’s motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds. Forum non conveniens is a doctrine allowing a court to dismiss when another forum is the appropriate place to hear the dispute. The dismissal was without prejudice to filing the case in Canada, but the court did not give Krayzman permission to file an amended complaint in that court. Judge Vince Chhabria ordered the case dismissed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.