Niagra Mohawk Power Corp. v. Windstream Communications, LLC
Docket: 5:16-CV-35 (DNH/TWD)
Court: District Court, N.D. New York; March 25, 2016; Federal District Court
Plaintiff Niagra Mohawk Power Corporation filed a civil suit against defendant Windstream Communications, Inc. in New York state court on November 6, 2015, alleging breach of contract related to a "Right of Occupancy Agreement." Windstream removed the case to federal court on January 11, 2016, citing diversity jurisdiction. Niagra Mohawk opposed this removal, arguing for remand to state court based on a forum selection clause in the Agreement that explicitly states any legal proceedings must be initiated in New York state courts.
Niagra Mohawk contends that the clause grants exclusive jurisdiction to New York state courts, effectively waiving the right to remove the case to federal court, asserting that any other interpretation would render the clause meaningless. In contrast, Windstream argues that the clause only dictates where the lawsuit must commence and does not prevent removal, claiming no "clear and unequivocal" waiver exists.
The court referenced previous rulings, including a Southern District case and a Second Circuit decision, which established that similar forum selection clauses indicate exclusive jurisdiction in state courts, thereby making the removal to federal court improper. The court concluded that the mandatory language of the forum selection clause should be enforced, aligning with precedent that supports Niagra Mohawk's position.
The court determined that the forum selection clause in the Agreement is mandatory, establishing that only the New York State Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the dispute. The plaintiff's attorney failed to cite relevant cases that underscore this point. The removal of the case to federal court was deemed improper, as Niagra Mohawk initiated the lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court based on the Agreement. The defendant's argument that the Agreement does not apply to the dispute is rejected, as it pertains to the substantive merits of the case, which should be addressed by the appropriate court. The court emphasized that the clear language of the forum selection clause mandates venue in New York State courts. As a result, the plaintiff's motion for remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) was granted, directing the case to be transferred to the New York State Supreme Court, Onondaga County, and the federal case file to be closed. The ruling is supported by prior case law indicating that references to a state's courts within a contract signify jurisdictional intent rather than mere geographic designation.
