Global Graphic Resources LLC v. Triunfo, Inc.
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:18-cv-02710
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Global Graphic Resources v. Triunfo, Judge Wright transferred the case to Nevada and declined to address the arbitration motion.
Global Graphic Resources LLC and Daryl K. Hanzal must proceed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada; Triunfo, Inc.’s transfer request was granted, while the arbitration request was left undecided.
What happened
Global Graphic Resources LLC and Daryl K. Hanzal asked the court to compel arbitration of their dispute with Triunfo, Inc. The dispute involved contracts for selling Triunfo products and claims including breach of contract, misrepresentation, and violations of Minnesota’s sales-representative law.
Triunfo asked to transfer the case to federal court in Nevada under forum-selection clauses in the contracts. The court decided that request first, explaining that transferring the case would not decide the dispute’s merits and that it had not been established that the dispute was subject to arbitration.
The court granted Triunfo’s motion to transfer and transferred the case to the District of Nevada. It declined to address Global Graphic Resources and Hanzal’s motion to compel arbitration. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright entered the order.
The detailed version
- Global Graphic Resources LLC v. Triunfo, Inc. · No. 0:18-cv-02710
- Wilhelmina Wright
- July 1, 2019
Background
Global Graphic Resources LLC (GGR) and Daryl K. Hanzal sued Triunfo, Inc., formerly known as Catalina Graphic Films, Inc. The parties had entered a Sales Representative Agreement and a Consulting Agreement in November 2017. According to GGR, after Nekoosa LV, LLC, acquired Catalina in March 2018, Nekoosa refused to honor the sales agreement’s exclusive rights for GGR in certain areas of the Midwest.
GGR demanded arbitration, asserting claims for breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, and violations of the Minnesota Termination of Sales Representatives Act. GGR also sought a declaration preventing Triunfo from improperly terminating the Consulting Agreement and requiring continued payments under that agreement through at least December 31, 2020. GGR then began this action to compel arbitration.
Motions and analysis
Triunfo moved to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. GGR moved to compel arbitration. The court held that it should decide the transfer motion first. It explained that a motion to transfer based on a valid forum-selection clause—an agreement identifying the proper court or location for a dispute—does not decide the underlying dispute’s merits. The court also noted that no arbitration agreement between the parties had been established; GGR’s request to arbitrate was based on an asserted statutory right under the Minnesota Termination of Sales Representatives Act.
The court rejected GGR’s argument that the forum-selection clauses were invalid because they waived its right to arbitrate. It reasoned that, even if the statute provided a right to arbitrate, GGR had not shown why the arbitration question had to be decided by the Minnesota court rather than the Nevada court. If the dispute were arbitrable, GGR could pursue arbitration after transfer. The court also concluded that the Minnesota statute was silent about forum-selection clauses and venue and therefore did not prevent enforcement of those clauses.
Disposition
The court granted Triunfo’s motion to transfer, transferred the case to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, and declined to rule on GGR’s motion to compel arbitration. The order did not decide whether GGR’s claims must be arbitrated.
Result
Respondent’s motion to transfer, docketed as Docket 6, was GRANTED. The case was transferred to the District of Nevada. The court declined to address the petitioners’ motion to compel arbitration.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.