STRINE
v.
THE UNITED STATES CENTER FOR SAFE SPORT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Plaintiff Strine challenged the United States Center for Safe Sport's authority to ban him from participating in Olympic-related activities. The District Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss in part by transferring the case to the District of Colorado based on an exclusive venue clause in the SafeSport Code of Conduct.
The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss in part by transferring the case to the District of Colorado. The court found that because the plaintiff's claims are all related to the SafeSport Code of Conduct, the exclusive venue provision applies and the case must be transferred to Colorado.
“in the event that any party brings any action against the other related to this Code, the parties agree that the venue of such action shall be vested exclusively in the United States District Court for the District if Colorado.”
The exclusive venue clause from the SafeSport Code of Conduct that provided the basis for the transfer.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant banned the plaintiff from participating in certain actions related to the United States Olympics. The plaintiff filed suit challenging t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Forum Selection Clause Enforceability cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss at docket entry 14. The Plaintiff filed a response at docket entry 19. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted in part insofar as this case will be transferred to the District of Colorado.
The Defendant in this case banned the Plaintiff from participating in certain actions that are related to United States Olympics. DE 1 at 5. The Plaintiff has filed this suit on the premise that the Defendant lacked the power to do so.
The governing code over the Defendant's prior actions against the Plaintiff is the Safesport Code of Conduct (the “Code”), which the Plaintiff cites in his Complaint. Id. at 1. The Defendant has provided a full copy of that code with its Motion. DE 14-1. The Code provides that: “[I]n the event that any party brings any action against the other related to this Code, the parties agree that the venue of such action shall be vested exclusively in the United States District Court for the District if Colorado." Id. at 7.
The Plaintiff certainly challenges the propriety of the Defendant's prior actions against him under the Code. By way of example, the Plaintiff references the Code over forty times in his Complaint. And while the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant are not limited to the Code, the Plaintiff's claims are all certainly "related” to the Code. For this reason, the Court grants the Defendant's request for a venue transfer and leaves all remaining questions (such as the parties' disputes over the judicial reviewability of the Code) to the proper venue-Colorado. [fn 1]
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado and mark this case as
CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, West Palm Beach, Florida, this 23rd day of August, 2024.
ROBIN L. ROSENBERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of record
[fn 1]: "The enforceability of a forum selection clause in a case based on federal question is governed by federal law.” Loeffelholz v. Ascension Health, Inc., 34 F. Supp. 3d 1187, 1189 (M.D. Fla. 2014). “When the parties have agreed to a valid forum-selection clause, a district court should ordinarily transfer the case to the forum specified in that clause." Id. "Only under extraordinary circumstances unrelated to the convenience of the parties should a § 1404(a) motion be denied." Id. (emphasis added).