NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-4654-18 YORK MECHANICAL CORP., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KINNEY CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Respondent. _________________________ Submitted March 18, 2020 – Decided March 4, 2021 Before Judges Fuentes, Haas and Enright. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-1229-19. Skolnick Legal Group, PC, attorneys for appellant (Ronald W. Solares, on the briefs). Cole Schotz PC, attorneys for respondent (Adam, J. Sklar, of counsel and on the brief; Arnold P. Picinich, on the brief). The opinion of the court was delivered by FUENTES, P.J.A.D. Plaintiff York Mechanical Corporation is a licensed contractor located in Union City that supplies and installs heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. Defendant Kinney Construction Services, Inc., (KCS) is a construction service company located in Flagstaff, Arizona. At all times relevant to this case, defendant was the general contractor of a project located in Union City. Defendant hired plaintiff as a subcontractor to supply and install the project's HVAC equipment. Plaintiff filed a civil action against defendant alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and violation of New Jersey's Prompt Payment Act (NJPPA), N.J.S.A. 2A:30A-1 to -2. Before joinder of issue, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Rule 4:6- 2(e), based on the contract's forum selection clause, which provides that any litigation that arises from the parties' contractual relationship shall be brought in Coconino County, Arizona. After hearing oral argument, the Law Division granted defendant's motion and dismissed plaintiff's complaint without reaching the merits of plaintiff's substantive claims. The dispositive issue raised in this appeal concerns the enforceability of the contract's forum selection clause. Plaintiff argues that enforcement of the A-4654-18 2 forum selection clause violates the public policy codified by the Legislature in the NJPPA. Alternatively, plaintiff argues it never agreed to be bound by the contract's forum selection clause. Finally, even if we were to reject these two threshold arguments, plaintiff claims that litigating this case in Arizona would be seriously inconvenient and impair its ability to prosecute its case. Defendant argues otherwise. After reviewing the record developed before the Law Division and mindful of our standard of review, we reject plaintiff's arguments and affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Vincent J. Militello in his oral opinion delivered from the bench, as supplemented by his subsequent memorandum of decision. I Plaintiff's principal place of business is located in Union City, Hudson County. Defendant is located in Flagstaff, Arizona. Genterra Enterprises, LLC, (Genterra) hired defendant as general contractor of the construction project known as Sanitas Horizon Kennedy Center (Sanitas), located on Kennedy Boulevard in Union City, approximately seven blocks from plaintiff's office. As the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals