Yuksel v. Twitter Incorporated

Background

Edip Yuksel filed claims against Twitter Incorporated arising from Twitter’s suspension of his account. He alleged breach of contract and a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Yuksel alleged that Twitter permanently suspended his account without giving a specific reason despite his appeals. He sought reinstatement of the account and $142 million in damages.

The order identified four pending motions: Twitter’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Twitter’s motion to transfer the case, Yuksel’s filing opposing the transfer, and Twitter’s motion to strike Yuksel’s second response. The court treated Yuksel’s filing as his response to the transfer motion because he was representing himself. The order ruled on the transfer motion and did not state a disposition for the other listed motions.

Transfer Motion

Twitter moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a statute allowing a federal court to transfer a civil case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. Twitter argued that Yuksel agreed to its Terms of Service when he created or used his account. Those Terms included a forum-selection clause providing that claims or litigation arising in connection with Twitter’s services would be brought solely in San Francisco County, California.

The court explained that a valid forum-selection clause ordinarily controls the choice of forum. The party trying to avoid the clause bears a heavy burden and must make a strong showing that the clause is invalid, conflicts with an important public policy, or would make litigation in the selected forum so difficult that the party would effectively lose the opportunity to be heard.

Yuksel argued that transfer would require him to travel to San Francisco and pay for a hotel. He described his financial circumstances, including his income, charitable donations, investments, and refinancing of one of his homes. The court concluded that the asserted financial hardship was not enough to make the forum-selection clause unenforceable. It also noted that Yuksel did not have fee-waiver status in the case and had not shown that he could not participate by telephone or virtually in proceedings in California.

Ruling

The court held that Twitter’s forum-selection clause was valid and enforceable, that Yuksel had agreed to the Terms of Service, and that he had not shown an exceptional circumstance justifying refusal to enforce the clause. The court therefore granted Twitter’s Motion to Change Venue/Transfer Case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and ordered the clerk to transfer the case there. Judge Hixson’s order did not decide whether Yuksel’s claims stated a legally sufficient claim, and it did not state rulings on the other pending motions.