Montoya v. GoPro Inc.

Background

Miguel Montoya alleged that he suffered physical and emotional damages while surfing with a GoPro Hero 7 camera and GoPro mouth-mount accessory. He sued GoPro, Inc. and ACME. GoPro removed the case from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Court of First Instance based on diversity jurisdiction and then moved to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In the alternative, GoPro asked the court to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.

GoPro relied on Terms of Use governing the purchase and use of its products. The Terms of Use provided for a two-step alternative-dispute process, including binding arbitration, and stated that for residents outside the United States, arbitration must be initiated in the courts of the Northern District of California. The court noted that, under GoPro’s business structure, residents of Puerto Rico were treated as residents outside the United States for purposes of the Terms of Use. Montoya did not respond to GoPro’s motions, and the court deemed them unopposed.

Court’s analysis

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. It held that when a valid forum-selection clause applies, the clause receives controlling weight except in exceptional circumstances. The court also adopted the approach that when an arbitration agreement includes a forum-selection clause, the proper venue for compelling arbitration is the district identified in that clause.

The court found that both potentially applicable versions of GoPro’s Terms of Use required arbitration-related proceedings for residents outside the United States to begin in the Northern District of California. Because Montoya did not oppose the transfer or show that the clause was unreasonable, he did not establish that transfer was unwarranted. The court therefore concluded that the complaint had to be transferred to the contractually selected forum.

Ruling

Judge Daniel R. Domínguez granted GoPro’s motion to transfer venue and ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The court denied without prejudice GoPro’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration under Rule 12(b)(1), and separately denied without prejudice GoPro’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The opinion did not decide whether the complaint should ultimately be dismissed or whether arbitration should ultimately be compelled.