Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
211 F.3d 495 (2000)


Facts

Jones (plaintiff) and GNC Franchising, Inc. (GNC) (defendant) entered into various agreements, including a franchise agreement, with respect to Jones’s operation of a General Nutrition Store in La Verne, California. The franchise agreement contained a Pennsylvania choice of law clause and a forum selection clause, restricting venue to courts in the Pennsylvania judicial district of GNC’s principal place of business. After a dispute arose between Jones and GNC regarding the construction and operation of the La Verne store, Jones filed suit against GNC in a California state court. GNC removed the matter to federal district court on the basis of diversity, then moved the district court to: (1) dismiss the matter or transfer venue to the Western District of Pennsylvania, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) or (2) in the alternative, transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court denied both motions, concluding that the forum selection clause in the parties’ agreement was unenforceable and that the California forum was appropriate because: (1) the claims, evidence, and witnesses had more connections to California than Pennsylvania, (2) most of the agreements relevant to the suit had been negotiated and signed in California, (3) Jones had selected a California forum, and (4) the relative costs to the litigants favored California. GNC appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Politz, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.