If I read that arbitration clause Russ ALSO filed in the wrong jurisdiction. It should be in California even if it is in federal court. Yes? Or does it not matter so much in federal court? I always forget.
Even if they didn't choose to change venue to California pursuant to the agreement, they could still demand it be adjudicated under California law, which a federal court can do. Choice-of-law and choice-of-forum are both covered in this nifty little thing.
I ordinarily don't like arbitration clauses much but imagine trying to operate an entertainment business where every fucked up, talentless, retarded gimp who didn't get hired because nobody wants to look at that slurping and drooling and shit could sue you.
He agreed to AGT terms of service for auditions which included these parts:
I just figured out why there are two of these. The html version is the TOS for the website. The PDF is what you actually have to sign (among other things) to do the audition itself. They have really nailed this down, so you can neither sue them about the audition, nor try to sneak around that by claiming you're really suing over the website.
Another bit of professionalism I noticed is they do not bury any of this in fine print, leaving a frivolous plaintiff with no way to claim this was somehow deceptively presented. On one it's right up front in all caps, and in the other, it's a giant paragraph also in all caps.
If you know contract law, you know there is something called a "contract of adhesion," which is generally drafted by one party in a superior negotiating position, who tells you you can take it or leave it. When the terms of such a contract are ambiguous, they are interpreted in favor of the non-drafting party.
I hope he tries to claim that it's ambiguous and a contract of adhesion and therefore should be interpreted in his favor, because I love to see him fail at life and everything else.