Need Help with the Reasoning section

Filer, Inc. v. Staples, Inc. Study Case

Facts

In 2006 Staples entered into two manufacturing and purchase agreements with HWA Fuh Plastics Co. Ltd. (HFP). In the agreements was such that Massachusetts law would govern the agreements. November 2009, HFP assigned its rights under the agreements with Staples to Filer Inc. June 11, 2010 Filer filed a breach of contract in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Staples. However, Staples countered by moving for a transfer of venue to the District of Massachusetts. California court granted change of venue.

History

On January 14, 2011, Staples moved for summary judgment on both claims. On June 11, 2010, Filer filed this Complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Filer accuses Staples of breaching the 2006 Agreement and of selling products that infringe the '676 patent. Staples responded on July 13, 2010, with a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for a transfer of venue to the District of Massachusetts. On August 12, 2010, the California court denied Staples's motion to dismiss and granted Staples's request for a change of venue. On August 27, 2010, Staples answered Filer's Complaint and asserted counterclaims against both Filer and HFP. Filer answered Staples's Counterclaims on October 1, 2010. The parties disagree as to which of them is responsible for breaching the Agreements and whether Staples's substitute products infringe the '676 patent.

Issues

Does changing the venue change the laws under the agreement?

Reasoning

Results

Staples filed counterclaims against both Filer and HFP and moved for summary judgment of Filers breach of contract claim, arguing that Filer had no rights under the contract because the purported assignment of HFPs rights to Filer was prohibited by the agreements provisions regarding assignments. For the foregoing reasons, Staple motion for summary judgment.. Is ALLOWED SO ORDERED