ORDER

VICKI MILES-LaGRANGE, District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant's 12(b)(3) Motion to Dismiss, filed January 21, 2015. On February 16, 2015, plaintiffs responded, and on February 26, 2015, defendant replied. Based on the parties' submissions, the Court makes its determination.

I. Introduction1

On or about October 25, 2010, OL Addison, LLC ("OL Addison"), an entity owned by plaintiffs, executed an Assignment/Assumption Approval Agreement ("Assignment #1") and assumed the obligations of an existing lease agreement with the Bear on Jog, LLLP ("Landlord") to begin the operation of an Orange Leaf frozen yogurt franchise ("Store") in Delray Beach, Florida. Under the assumption of the lease, plaintiffs also individually executed a Continuing Lease Guaranty ("Guaranty") with the Landlord. On August 31, 2012, defendant, on behalf of Yummy Yogurt MUDFL, LLC ("Yummy Yogurt"), agreed to enter into an Asset Purchase Agreement ("Agreement")2 with OL Austin Leasing, LLC and OL Addison ("Sellers"), to take over the ownership and operations of the Store. In addition to the Agreement, on that same day, defendant, in his individual capacity, and plaintiffs also entered into an Indemnification Agreement3.4

Yummy Yogurt operated the Store and made payments under the lease up until it failed to pay rent on August 1, 2013, and thereafter. On or about September 12, 2013, the Landlord filed suit against OL Addison, plaintiffs, and Yummy Yogurt. On September 18, 2013, upon receipt of the summons and complaint in the Landlord's suit, a representative of the Sellers and plaintiffs contacted Yummy Yogurt to determine whether it intended on curing the lease default. On October 29, 2013, the Landlord, OL Addison, plaintiffs, and Yummy Yogurt entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the Landlord's suit.5

Yummy Yogurt continued operations of the Store until it failed to pay rent on May 1, 2014, and further failed to make monthly payments after that. On October 3, 2014, the Landlord sent both Yummy Yogurt and OL Addison a written default notice demanding payment by October 10, 2014, in the amount of $26,634.83, for past due rent and $41,707.86, for accelerated rent. After receiving the default notice, a representative of the Sellers and plaintiffs contacted Yummy Yogurt to determine whether it intended to cure the lease default, and on October 9, 2014, counsel for Yummy Yogurt informed counsel for the Sellers and plaintiffs that payment would not be submitted to the Landlord to cure the default on the lease. On October 13, 2014, plaintiffs tendered payment to the Landlord in the amount due, $68,324.69.

On October 29, 2014, counsel for plaintiffs sent a notice and demand for indemnification to counsel for Yummy Yogurt and defendant, requesting that defendant notify counsel for plaintiffs whether he intended to comply with the Indemnification Agreement and reimburse plaintiffs for the amounts tendered to the Landlord. As of November 14, 2014, the date plaintiffs filed this action in the District Court of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, defendant had failed to respond to the demand for indemnification. On January 5, 2015, defendant removed this action to this Court. Defendant now moves the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), to dismiss plaintiffs' Complaint for improper venue.

II. Standard for Dismissal

Atl. Marine Constr. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 568, 577 (2013) (internal quotations omitted). "Although a forum-selection clause does not render venue in a court wrong or improper within the meaning of § 1406(a) or Rule 12(b)(3), the clause may be enforced through a motion to transfer under § 1404(a)." Id. at 579. Further, "the appropriate way to enforce a forum-selection clause pointing to a state or foreign forum is through the doctrine of forum non conveniens." Id. at 580.

III. Discussion

In the instant case, defendant moves the Court to dismiss this action, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), for improper venue, since the exclusive venue for any litigation relating to Assignment #2 of the lease and the settlement agreement is the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida.6 Plaintiffs contend that venue is proper since this action is brought under the Indemnification Agreement between plaintiffs and defendant and not the settlement agreement or Assignment #2.7 However, before the Court can determine if the forum selection clause applies in this instance, the Court must determine if venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) ("Section 1391(b)").

Having carefully reviewed plaintiffs' Complaint, the Court finds that plaintiffs have failed to satisfy Section 1391(b) to show venue is proper in this Court. Specifically, the Court finds that plaintiffs allege, in their Complaint, that "upon information and belief, Defendant is, and at all times relevant to this action was, a citizen of the State of Indiana." Compl. ¶ 4. As a result of this allegation, plaintiffs cannot satisfy Section 1391(b)(1), requiring the defendant to reside in the judicial district in which the case has been brought. Further, plaintiffs allege that the Store, which is the subject of the lease, is located in Delray Beach, Florida, and plaintiffs have not alleged that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims in this case occurred in the Western District of Oklahoma; therefore, plaintiffs have also failed to satisfy Section 1391(b)(2). Lastly, the Court finds that this case could have been brought either in the United States District Court in Indiana, where defendant resides, or in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where the Store is located; therefore, plaintiffs have failed to satisfy Section 1391(b)(3). Therefore, the Court finds that plaintiffs' Complaint should be dismissed for improper venue.

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [docket no. 11] and DISMISSES this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.