Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court

Atlantic Marine Construction Co., Inc. v. United States District Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 9, 2013
Decided December 3, 2013
Full case nameAtlantic Marine Construction Co., Inc. v. United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
Docket no.12-929
Citations571 U.S. 49 (more)
134 S. Ct. 568; 187 L. Ed. 2d 487; 82 U.S.L.W. 4021
Opinion announcementOpinion announcement
Case history
PriorIn re Atlantic Marine Construction Co., 701 F.3d 736 (5th Cir. 2012)
Holding
A forum selection clause may be enforced by a motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). When such a motion is filed, the district court should transfer the case except in limited and extraordinary circumstances.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinion
MajorityAlito, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Title 28 United States Code Section 1404(a)

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.[1]

Background

Petitioner, a corporate citizen of Virginia, entered into a contract to build a child development center in Fort Hood, Texas.[2] The Petitioner then entered into a subcontract with a Texas corporation for work on the project.[3] 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.[4] 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.[3] 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.[3] In the alternative, the Petitioner sought transfer to the Eastern District of Virginia under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a).[3] The district court denied both motions.[3] 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.[5]

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).[6] When such a motion is made, the district court should grant it unless extraordinary circumstances counsel against doing so.[7] 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.[8] While that doctrine has been codified at Section 1404(a) for the federal system, the same factors that apply in analyzing motions user that statute can be used to transfer cases to non-federal forums.[9]

See also

References

  1. ^ Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court, No. 12-929, 571 U.S. ___, slip op. at 1 (2013).
  2. ^ Atlantic Marine Construction, slip op. at 2 (noting that Atlantic Marine's principal place of business was in Virginia).
  3. ^ a b c d e Atlantic Marine Construction, slip op. at 2.
  4. ^ Atlantic Marine Construction, slip op. at 2 (citing In re Atlantic Marine Constr. Co., 701 F. 3d 736, 737–738 (5th Cir. 2012)).
  5. ^ Atlantic Marine Construction, slip op. at 3.
  6. ^ Atlantic Marine Construction, slip op. at 4, 8-9.
  7. ^ 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.").
  8. ^ Atlantic Marine Construction, slip op. at 8-10.
  9. ^ 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.").