Robin Petersen v. Boeing Company
715 F.3d 276
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Petersen, pro se and in forma pauperis, worked as a flight instructor for Boeing’s Saudi subsidiary (BISS) after being recruited from the U.S. Navy.
- Upon arrival in Saudi Arabia, he signed a second employment agreement containing a forum selection clause directing Saudi Labor Courts, after not being given time to read it.
- Petersen alleges passport confiscation, confinement, poor living and safety conditions, and coercion to sign or return to the U.S. at his own expense.
- He later returned to the U.S. and sued Boeing and BISS for breach of contract and various statutory and common-law claims, submitting affidavits alleging inability to travel, risk of Saudi detention, and fraud/overreaching to obtain the clause.
- The district court dismissed the suit under Rule 12(b)(3) for improper venue, denied leave to amend, and relied on the forum clause; on appeal, questions center on enforceability under Bremen and whether an evidentiary hearing was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the forum selection clause enforceable under Bremen? | Petersen alleges fraud/overreaching in obtaining the clause. | Clause is enforceable per Bremen and controlling circuit precedent. | Triable issue; remand for evidentiary findings. |
| Must there be an evidentiary hearing to test enforceability given potential day-in-court foreclosures? | Yes; evidence shows he cannot litigate in Saudi Arabia. | Enforceable clause may be decided on record. | Abuse of discretion; remand for evidentiary hearing. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend? | Proposed amendments would add facts supporting enforceability concerns. | Amendment not warranted. | Abuse of discretion; remand for consideration of amendments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spradlin v. Lear Siegler Mgmt. Servs. Co., 926 F.2d 865 (9th Cir. 1991) (enforcement of Saudi forum clause scrutinized; need more facts for validity of clause)
- Murphy v. Schneider Nat’l, Inc., 362 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2004) (evidentiary hearing required if day-in-court would be foreclosed)
- M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1972) (three Bremen exceptions to enforceability of forum clause)
- Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (U.S. 1991) (restrictive enforcement and need for factual findings in some cases)
- Argueta v. Banco Mexicano, S.A., 87 F.3d 320 (9th Cir. 1996) (comments on enforceability relative to forum selection)
- Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2009) (extreme liberality in allowing amendments; abuse of discretion standard)