Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.
134 S. Ct. 568
| SCOTUS | 2013Background
- Atlantic Marine contracted with the Army Corps of Engineers and subcontracted with J-Crew that included a forum-selection clause designating Virginia courts.
- J-Crew sued Atlantic Marine in the Western District of Texas; Atlantic Marine moved to dismiss under §1406(a) or to transfer under §1404(a).
- District Court denied both motions, holding §1404(a) is the exclusive mechanism for enforcing a forum-selection clause within the federal system and that Atlantic Marine bore the burden to show transfer was appropriate.
- Fifth Circuit denied mandamus, agreeing with the District Court that §1404(a) applies to federal-forum clauses and that dismissal under Rule 12(b)(3) would be proper if the forum were nonfederal.
- The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a valid forum-selection clause is enforced via §1404(a) transfer with specific adjustments, and remanded to apply the proper framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What mechanism enforces a forum-selection clause? | Atlantic Marine: clause may be enforced via §1406(a) or Rule 12(b)(3). | J-Crew: clause should be enforced via §1404(a) transfer within the federal system. | §1404(a) is the proper mechanism to enforce a forum-selection clause. |
| How should §1404(a) be applied when a forum-selection clause exists? | Burden on Atlantic Marine to show transfer is appropriate under §1404(a). | Burden on J-Crew to show public-interest factors overwhelmingly disfavor transfer. | When a clause exists, plaintiff's forum choice weight is zero; defendant bears the burden; public interests examined; clause controls absent exceptional circumstances. |
| What weight do private vs public interests have in §1404(a) transfer with a forum clause? | Private interests may argue against transfer. | Private interests largely favor the contractually specified forum and should not override the clause. | Private interests weigh in favor of the preselected forum; public interests examined but rarely defeat transfer; clause controls. |
| What law applies in the transferee forum when a forum-selection clause points to a nonfederal venue? | Not explicitly stated here. | District court’s mistaken belief about law application is corrected; transfer does not carry original venue’s choice-of-law. | Transfer under §1404(a) does not carry the original venue’s choice-of-law rules; Virginia choice-of-law applies; Klaxon exception not extended. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U. S. 22 (1988) (forum-selection clause given controlling weight in transfer analysis)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U. S. 612 (1964) (transfer to a proper venue under §1404(a) where action might have been brought)
- Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U. S. 29 (1955) (private and public-interest factors in transfer analysis; context for forum non conveniens)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U. S. 235 (1981) (public-interest considerations in forum-related decisions; familiarity with law)
- Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U. S. 422 (2007) (forum non conveniens as underlying basis for certain transfers; federal codification)
- Ferens v. John Deere Co., 494 U. S. 516 (1990) (extending Klaxon rule considerations in §1404(a) transfers)
- Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp. (repeat citation for context), 487 U. S. 22 (1988) (see above)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack (repeat citation for context), 376 U. S. 612 (1964) (see above)
- Bremen v. Zapata Offshore Co., 407 U. S. 1 (1972) (forum-selection clauses and expectations in contracts)