Supreme Court Endorses Forum Selection Clauses

by Holland & Knight LLP
Contact

The Supreme Court has strongly endorsed forum selection clauses in government subcontracts. In Atlantic Marine Construction Company, Inc. v. U. S. Dist. Court, 234 S.Ct. 568 (U.S. December 3, 2013), Atlantic Marine, a Virginia-based company, was the prime contractor on a U.S. Army contract to build a child development center at Ft. Hood, Texas. It hired a local Texas subcontractor, J-Crew, and inserted a clause in the subcontract requiring that all disputes between the parties be litigated in Virginia state or federal courts. When J-Crew sued in Texas, the district court denied Atlantic Marine's motion to transfer the case to Virginia or dismiss for forum non-conveniens and Atlantic Marine appealed. The Supreme Court reversed both the district court and the court of appeals, which had allowed the case to proceed in Texas, reasoning that it was improper to dismiss or transfer because the case arose in Texas and all of J-Crew's witnesses were located there. 

Much of the Court's opinion deals with the technicalities of the federal venue statutes, but it is clear that government contractors and their subcontractors should expect that mandatory forum selection clauses in their subcontracts or purchase orders will be enforced, according to their terms, except in the most extraordinary of circumstances. While a court in considering a motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue normally balances various public and private interests in determining which court is the proper venue or place to try a case, the presence of a forum selection clause: (a) takes away the usual presumption that the plaintiff is entitled to its choice of forum; (b) cancels out any consideration of the "private interests" of the parties (since they have already agreed, by contract, on the proper forum); and (c) forfeits the benefit of the original forum's choice of law rules, since the plaintiff has, in effect, breached the contract by bringing the case in the wrong forum.

A forum selection clause is indeed a powerful tool for a contractor with enough bargaining power to write its own contract or subcontract. But is that always the right choice?

To begin with, forum selection clauses come in two varieties - "permissive" and "mandatory." A "permissive" clause typically provides that the parties consent to jurisdiction and agree to venue in the selected court, which can be either state or federal. These clauses have the benefit of taking away objections that the defendant might have to being sued in a particular forum, but they do not require either party to sue there. Thus, for example, if a materials supplier is concerned about collecting debts from customers in multiple jurisdictions, a permissive clause may make it easy for the company to bring all of its collection cases in its home court, where its finance employees can easily be available to testify about unpaid invoices, at a minimum of time and expense. Permissive clauses may also be a way to get multiple defendants together in the same court, where jurisdiction or venue might otherwise be doubtful as to some of them.

"Mandatory" clauses are potentially much more powerful. As the Supreme Court noted in Atlantic Marine, such clauses can be used to force a plaintiff to sue in a court that is potentially favorable to the defendant or, conversely, to prevent the plaintiff from suing in a plaintiff-friendly forum. They can also make it easier for a large company to control its litigation costs by requiring potential plaintiffs to come to the large company’s home territory to resolve disputes. Moreover, there is no benefit to being the first to sue, because the plaintiff's choice of the forum is no longer entitled to any weight. Finally, in international contracting, the mandatory choice of a U.S. forum may be a good way to ensure that you don't end up litigating in a third-world court or in a court with a strange or unfamiliar set of laws or procedural rules.

There are many good reasons to use a mandatory forum selection clause, but there are also significant pitfalls. Even though your company may have drafted the clause, you may not want to follow its terms when it actually comes time to file a lawsuit. For example, if your company needs third-party witnesses (including your former employees) to tell its story, it might be much more expensive - or even prejudicial - to bring the case in the mandatory forum (witnesses usually cannot be compelled to cross state lines to testify). Similarly, if you have a mandatory forum selection clause in a non-compete agreement with your employee, you may not be able to sue both her and her new employer in the same case if she goes to work for a competitor in another state and the competitor has no connection to the mandatory forum.

Companies will find in most cases that it makes good sense to maximize their flexibility through the use of permissive forum selection clauses. If you act first, you can force your opponent to litigate in a particular forum, but you also have the option of suing elsewhere if that is what makes sense. If you do choose to go with a mandatory clause, your lawyers should attempt to give your company the option to sue in another forum, should that be necessary. You might also consider a forum selection clause that requires either party (the plaintiff) to sue in the courts of the jurisdiction where the other contracting party, i.e., the defendant, is located. Such a clause discourages the hasty filing of suit because the filing party gets no advantage, and may even be at a disadvantage, by being the first to file.

- See more at: http://www.hklaw.com/GovConBlog/Supreme-Court-Endorses-Forum-Selection-Clauses-01-22-2014/#sthash.wngIaQtT.dpuf

The Supreme Court has strongly endorsed forum selection clauses in government subcontracts. In Atlantic Marine Construction Company, Inc. v. U. S. Dist. Court, 234 S.Ct. 568 (U.S. December 3, 2013), Atlantic Marine, a Virginia-based company, was the prime contractor on a U.S. Army contract to build a child development center at Ft. Hood, Texas. It hired a local Texas subcontractor, J-Crew, and inserted a clause in the subcontract requiring that all disputes between the parties be litigated in Virginia state or federal courts. When J-Crew sued in Texas, the district court denied Atlantic Marine's motion to transfer the case to Virginia or dismiss for forum non-conveniens and Atlantic Marine appealed. The Supreme Court reversed both the district court and the court of appeals, which had allowed the case to proceed in Texas, reasoning that it was improper to dismiss or transfer because the case arose in Texas and all of J-Crew's witnesses were located there.

Much of the Court's opinion deals with the technicalities of the federal venue statutes, but it is clear that government contractors and their subcontractors should expect that mandatory forum selection clauses in their subcontracts or purchase orders will be enforced, according to their terms, except in the most extraordinary of circumstances. While a court in considering a motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue normally balances various public and private interests in determining which court is the proper venue or place to try a case, the presence of a forum selection clause: (a) takes away the usual presumption that the plaintiff is entitled to its choice of forum; (b) cancels out any consideration of the "private interests" of the parties (since they have already agreed, by contract, on the proper forum); and (c) forfeits the benefit of the original forum's choice of law rules, since the plaintiff has, in effect, breached the contract by bringing the case in the wrong forum.

A forum selection clause is indeed a powerful tool for a contractor with enough bargaining power to write its own contract or subcontract. But is that always the right choice?

To begin with, forum selection clauses come in two varieties - "permissive" and "mandatory." A "permissive" clause typically provides that the parties consent to jurisdiction and agree to venue in the selected court, which can be either state or federal. These clauses have the benefit of taking away objections that the defendant might have to being sued in a particular forum, but they do not require either party to sue there. Thus, for example, if a materials supplier is concerned about collecting debts from customers in multiple jurisdictions, a permissive clause may make it easy for the company to bring all of its collection cases in its home court, where its finance employees can easily be available to testify about unpaid invoices, at a minimum of time and expense. Permissive clauses may also be a way to get multiple defendants together in the same court, where jurisdiction or venue might otherwise be doubtful as to some of them.

"Mandatory" clauses are potentially much more powerful. As the Supreme Court noted in Atlantic Marine, such clauses can be used to force a plaintiff to sue in a court that is potentially favorable to the defendant or, conversely, to prevent the plaintiff from suing in a plaintiff-friendly forum. They can also make it easier for a large company to control its litigation costs by requiring potential plaintiffs to come to the large company’s home territory to resolve disputes. Moreover, there is no benefit to being the first to sue, because the plaintiff's choice of the forum is no longer entitled to any weight. Finally, in international contracting, the mandatory choice of a U.S. forum may be a good way to ensure that you don't end up litigating in a third-world court or in a court with a strange or unfamiliar set of laws or procedural rules.

There are many good reasons to use a mandatory forum selection clause, but there are also significant pitfalls. Even though your company may have drafted the clause, you may not want to follow its terms when it actually comes time to file a lawsuit. For example, if your company needs third-party witnesses (including your former employees) to tell its story, it might be much more expensive - or even prejudicial - to bring the case in the mandatory forum (witnesses usually cannot be compelled to cross state lines to testify). Similarly, if you have a mandatory forum selection clause in a non-compete agreement with your employee, you may not be able to sue both her and her new employer in the same case if she goes to work for a competitor in another state and the competitor has no connection to the mandatory forum.

Companies will find in most cases that it makes good sense to maximize their flexibility through the use of permissive forum selection clauses. If you act first, you can force your opponent to litigate in a particular forum, but you also have the option of suing elsewhere if that is what makes sense. If you do choose to go with a mandatory clause, your lawyers should attempt to give your company the option to sue in another forum, should that be necessary. You might also consider a forum selection clause that requires either party (the plaintiff) to sue in the courts of the jurisdiction where the other contracting party, i.e., the defendant, is located. Such a clause discourages the hasty filing of suit because the filing party gets no advantage, and may even be at a disadvantage, by being the first to file.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Holland & Knight LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Holland & Knight LLP
Contact
more
less

Holland & Knight LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!