Natasha Mueller v. Apple Leisure Corporation
880 F.3d 890
| 7th Cir. | 2018Background
- Natasha Mueller suffered Ciguatera food poisoning after eating fish at Secrets Resort in Punta Cana during a honeymoon trip purchased through Apple Vacations/Apple Leisure Group.
- The travel contract (on the vouchers) contained a boldface forum‑selection clause designating the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania as the exclusive forum for disputes.
- The Muellers filed suit in federal court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin asserting breach of warranty, negligence, and contractual benefits; they amended to name Apple Vacations and AM Resorts, LP among defendants.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(6), invoking the forum‑selection clause; the district judge treated the motion as one to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds and dismissed the case.
- The Muellers appealed, arguing procedural error because the defendants did not expressly move under forum non conveniens and that the court should have converted the motion to summary judgment and allowed discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper procedural vehicle to enforce forum‑selection clause pointing to a nonfederal forum | Muellers: court should not invoke forum non conveniens sua sponte where defendants did not expressly move under that doctrine | Apple: Atlantic Marine requires enforcing nonfederal forum clauses via forum non conveniens, so dismissal on that basis is proper | Court: Treating and deciding the motion under forum non conveniens was procedurally proper and within discretion |
| Standard of review and factors to consider when clause exists | Muellers: public‑interest factors require more probing; private‑interest and discovery might matter | Apple: Atlantic Marine limits inquiry to public‑interest factors because parties waived private‑interest objections | Court: Atlantic Marine controls; private interests drop out and only rare public interests can override clause |
| Need to convert to summary judgment and permit discovery because contract attached to motion | Muellers: attachment required conversion under Rule 56 and discovery opportunity | Apple: contract was referenced in complaint and central to claims; authenticity not contested | Court: No conversion required; documents integral to pleadings may be considered and discovery would not affect public‑interest inquiry |
| Whether any public‑interest justification exists to override clause | Muellers: asserted potential unenforceability (consumer contract) and hinted related‑entity arguments | Apple: no public‑interest reasons to override; clause enforceable | Court: Muellers identified no public‑interest reason; clause enforced and dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Atlantic Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the W. Dist. of Tex., 134 S. Ct. 568 (2013) (forum‑selection clauses pointing to nonfederal fora are enforced via forum non conveniens; private‑interest factors given no weight)
- Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007) (forum non conveniens remains available where §1404(a) does not apply)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (forum non conveniens standard and trial court discretion)
- Deb v. SIRVA, Inc., 832 F.3d 800 (7th Cir. 2016) (forum non conveniens dismissal reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- 188 LLC v. Trinity Indus., Inc., 300 F.3d 730 (7th Cir. 2002) (documents attached to a motion to dismiss are part of pleadings if referenced and central)
- Hecker v. Deere & Co., 556 F.3d 575 (7th Cir. 2009) (plaintiff’s failure to contest authenticity supports considering extraneous materials on dismissal)
- Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 449 U.S. 585 (1981) (forum‑selection clauses in consumer contracts can be enforceable)