Rouzard v. LinkedIn Corporation

Background

Diansky Rouzard alleged that he created and maintained a LinkedIn profile and later found unauthorized LinkedIn profile listings and unrelated images in search results. He said he contacted LinkedIn support and requested corrections. His operative second amended complaint asserted five counts: violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, violation of the Stored Communications Act, breach of the user agreement, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty.

LinkedIn moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California under the forum-selection clause in its user agreement. A forum-selection clause is a contract term identifying where disputes must be litigated. The clause stated that, for United States residents, all claims and disputes could be litigated only in federal or state courts in Santa Clara County, California, and that the parties agreed to personal jurisdiction there.

Arguments and analysis

Rouzard did not dispute agreeing to the user agreement, but argued that the forum-selection clause was unenforceable because it appeared in a non-negotiable clickwrap agreement. He also argued that transferring the case roughly 2,500 miles away would limit a Florida self-represented litigant’s access to court. He asserted that the case’s progress in Florida, witness location, and Florida’s interest weighed against transfer.

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer for convenience and the interests of justice, and held that the forum-selection clause was valid and enforceable. The court explained that such clauses ordinarily control unless extraordinary circumstances or strong public-interest factors favor keeping the case in the original court. It found that the clause’s inclusion in a clickwrap agreement did not by itself make it invalid. The court also concluded that the ordinary inconvenience of litigating outside one’s home state was foreseeable, that remote proceedings could reduce travel, and that Rouzard had not shown that enforcement would deprive him of his day in court.

The court further found that Rouzard had not shown that public-interest factors overwhelmingly disfavored transfer. The case was still at the pleading stage, Rouzard had not explained how transfer would create administrative difficulties, and the court found that the dispute was not sufficiently local to Florida. It also noted that the federal claims would involve federal law and that applying Florida or California common law would likely lead to similar outcomes.

Ruling

Judge Jukie S. Sneed granted the motion to transfer and directed the clerk to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Because the court granted the transfer motion, it did not address LinkedIn’s motion to dismiss or Rouzard’s motion to stay discovery. The order did not decide the merits of Rouzard’s five claims.