Matco Tools Corporation v. Usdc-Casf ( 2019 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 25 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: MATCO TOOLS CORPORATION; No. 19-71352
et al.,
______________________________ D.C. No. 3:19-cv-00463-WHO
MATCO TOOLS CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Petitioners,
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO,
Respondent,
JOHN FLEMING, On Behalf of Himself
and All Others Similarly Situated,
Real Party in Interest.
Petition for a Writ of Mandamus
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Submitted October 23, 2019**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Matco Tools Corporation, NMTC, Inc., and Fortive Corporation
(collectively “Matco”) seek a writ of mandamus compelling the district court to
dismiss Fleming’s action or transfer it to Ohio under a forum-selection clause.
Because the facts are known to the parties, we need not recount them here. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 and deny Matco’s petition.
Matco has failed to show that it is entitled to the “drastic and extraordinary
remedy” of mandamus. In re Pangang Grp. Co., LTD., 901 F.3d 1046, 1054
(9th Cir. 2018) (internal citation and quotations omitted). Whether a writ of
mandamus should be granted is determined case by case, weighing the factors
outlined in Bauman v. U.S. District Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977): (1) the
party seeking the writ has no other means, such as a direct appeal, of attaining the
desired relief; (2) the petitioner will be damaged in a way not correctable on
appeal; (3) the district court’s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; (4) the
order is an oft-repeated error, or manifests a persistent disregard of the federal
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2
rules; and (5) the order raises new and important problems, or issues of law of first
impression. Id. at 654–55.
We may not disturb the district court’s order absent “clear error”—a
“significantly deferential” standard of review. In re United States, 884 F.3d 830,
836 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal citation and quotations omitted); see also In re
Pangang Grp., 901 F.3d at 1060 (denying mandamus relief upon concluding that
order was not clearly erroneous).
The district court did not err—much less clearly so—in considering the
validity of the franchise agreement’s arbitration provision in the course of deciding
Matco’s motion. To the contrary, the district court followed binding Ninth Circuit
precedent in concluding: (i) Matco and Fleming did not agree to arbitrate their
dispute under the plain terms of their contract, see Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail N.
Am., Inc., 803 F.3d 425, 439 (9th Cir. 2015); (ii) absent a valid arbitration
provision, the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1–307, does not preempt section
20040.5, see Bradley v. Harris Research, Inc., 275 F.3d 884, 892 (9th Cir. 2001);
and (iii) applying section 20040.5, the forum-selection clause here is unenforceable
because it would require Fleming, a California franchisee, to litigate in a non-
3
California venue, see Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498
(9th Cir. 2000).1
Accordingly, the petition for a writ of mandamus is DENIED.
1
We decline to consider the purported error that Matco raises only in a
footnote of its petition. See Estate of Saunders v. Comm’r, 745 F.3d 953, 962 n.8
(9th Cir. 2014).
4