Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court

Atlantic Marine Construction Co., Inc. v. United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, 571 U.S. 49 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision dealing with the enforcement of forum selection clauses., slip op. at 1 (2013).

Background Petitioner, a corporate citizen of Virginia, entered into a contract to build a child development center in Fort Hood, Texas.Atlantic Marine Construction, slip op. at 2 (noting that Atlantic Marine's principal place of business was in Virginia). The Petitioner then entered into a subcontract with a Texas corporation for work on the project.Atlantic Marine Construction, slip op. at 2. The contract specified that any litigation resulting from the contract would be brought in state court in Norfolk, Virginia or in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.Atlantic Marine Construction, slip op. at 2 (citing In re Atlantic Marine Constr. Co., 701 F. 3d 736, 737–738 (5th Cir. 2012)). When a dispute arose under the contract, the Texas corporation filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, invoking that court's diversity jurisdiction. The Petitioner moved to dismiss the suit on the grounds that venue was "wrong" under 28 U.S.C. 1406(a) and "improper" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), citing the contract's forum selection clause. In the alternative, the Petitioner sought transfer to the Eastern District of Virginia under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). The district court denied both motions. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit refused to grant a writ of mandamus directing the district court to grant either motion.Atlantic Marine Construction, slip op. at 3.

Opinion In a unanimous opinion authored by Associate Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court clarified that the proper procedure to enforce a forum selection clause is through a motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a).Atlantic Marine Construction, slip op. at 4, 8-9. When such a motion is made, the district court should grant it unless extraordinary circumstances counsel against doing so.Atlantic Marine Construction, slip op. at 4, 8-9 ("Only under extraordinary circumstances unrelated to the convenience of the parties should a §1404(a) motion be denied."). Noting that Section 1404(a) does not provide for transfer to non-federal court venues, the Court said that the doctrine of forum non conveniens still exists within the federal courts.Atlantic Marine Construction, slip op. at 8-10. While that doctrine has been codified at Section 1404(a) for the federal system, the same factors that apply in analyzing motions under that statute can be used to transfer cases to non-federal forums.Atlantic Marine Construction, slip op. at 9-10 (""Section 1404(a) is merely a codification of the doctrine of forum non conveniens for the subset of cases in which the transferee forum is within the federal court system; in such cases, Congress has replaced the traditional remedy of outright dismissal with transfer.").

Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court

Bron en licentie