In Re Lloyd's Register North America, Inc.
780 F.3d 283
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- LRNA served as classification society for a Pearl Seas vessel and certifying services were contemplated under contracts with Irving.
- Pearl Seas and Irving entered Shipbuilding Contract; LRNA and Irving entered Classification Contract governing classification services for the ship.
- Arbitration between Irving and Pearl Seas occurred from 2008 to 2013 under the Shipbuilding Contract.
- Pearl Seas sued LRNA in Texas alleging tort claims including fraud, misrepresentation, negligence, and related theories.
- LRNA moved to dismiss for forum non conveniens (FNC) citing English forum-selection clauses in the LR Rules and in the Classification Contract; district court denied the motion without written/oral explanation, prompting mandamus relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus was proper to compel FNC dismissal | LRNA argues no adequate remedy except mandamus | Pearl Seas contends denial was proper and within discretion | Yes; mandamus granted to enforce FNC. |
| Whether the Classification Contract forum clause applies to Pearl Seas via direct-benefits estoppel | Pearl Seas not a signatory; estoppel not triggered | Pearl Seas knowingly benefited from contract terms | Yes; direct-benefits estoppel binds Pearl Seas to clause. |
| Whether the district court committed a clear abuse of discretion by not explaining its FNC ruling | Court’s denial lacked written/oral explanation and analysis | Yes; abuse of discretion and patently erroneous result. | |
| Whether Atlantic Marine requires enforcing the forum clause over private interests | Enforcement would burden Pearl Seas and limit remedies | Private interests weigh entirely in favor of preselected forum | Enforcement of the clause; private interests weigh in favor of England. |
| Whether the district court’s denial was a patently erroneous result given Atlantic Marine considerations | Patently erroneous; forum-selection clause should have controlled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Tex., 134 S. Ct. 568 (U.S. 2013) (enforce forum-selection clauses; weigh private interests first; public interests second)
- Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Pedicini, 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (mandamus scope; review limits; venue-transfer context relevant to FNC)
- Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n, 319 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1943) (unrecoverable costs not suffice to justify mandamus)
- McLennan v. American Eurocopter Corp., 245 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 2001) (prejudice must be greater than costs for post-judgment review)
- Gonzalez v. Naviera Neptuno A.A., 832 F.2d 876 (5th Cir. 1987) (procedural prerequisites for interlocutory §1292(b) appeal)
- Hellenic Investment Fund, Inc. v. Det Norske Veritas, 464 F.3d 514 (5th Cir. 2006) (direct-benefits estoppel; benefit includes classification services under contract)