5 F.4th 895
8th Cir.2021Background
- In 2016 Pope County contracted with Smart Communications Collier, Inc. to provide an inmate electronic messaging system.
- The contract contained a forum-selection clause: any litigation shall "be brought and completed in Pope County, Arkansas and other pertinent Arkansas courts," plus an anti-removal provision barring removal to federal courts.
- A dispute arose; the County sued Smart in Pope County Circuit Court, and Smart filed suit in federal district court (E.D. Ark.).
- The County moved to dismiss Smart’s federal suit based on the forum-selection clause; the district court dismissed.
- On appeal the Eighth Circuit applied Arkansas law, interpreted the clause to refer to Arkansas state courts (not federal courts located in Arkansas), and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the forum-selection clause allows federal suits in Arkansas | "In Pope County, Arkansas and other pertinent Arkansas courts" means any court physically located in Arkansas (including federal courts) — emphasis on preposition "in" | "Arkansas courts" denotes courts of the Arkansas state government (state jurisdiction), not any court within Arkansas | Clause limits litigation to Arkansas state courts; federal suit not permitted; dismissal affirmed |
| Effect of the word "pertinent" | "Other pertinent Arkansas courts" means courts with jurisdiction over the controversy (could include federal courts sitting in Arkansas) | "Pertinent" merely connects the phrase to related courts or matters and does not change the ordinary meaning of "Arkansas courts" | "Pertinent" does not alter the ordinary meaning; still refers to Arkansas state courts |
| Significance of the anti-removal provision | Because the anti-removal clause names "Circuit Courts or Appellate Courts of the State of Arkansas," the parties must have intended different meanings for the two clauses (so forum clause could include federal courts) | No rule requires different words to mean different things; both clauses can be given effect and the forum clause plainly limits to state courts | Anti-removal clause does not create a different meaning for "Arkansas courts"; no surplusage problem that changes the plain meaning |
| Choice of law for interpreting the clause | Arkansas law should govern interpretation | Parties agreed Arkansas law controls; outcome not affected by choice between state/federal law here | Court applied Arkansas law and reviewed interpretation de novo |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunne v. Libbra, 330 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir. 2003) (forum-selection clause interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Jorja Trading, Inc. v. Willis, 598 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. 2020) (clear contract language construed by plain meaning)
- Curley v. Old Reliable Cas. Co., 155 S.W.3d 711 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004) (when only one reasonable interpretation exists, courts apply plain language)
- Simonoff v. Expedia, Inc., 643 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011) (distinguishing "courts in" vs "courts of" a state for scope of forum clauses)
- FindWhere Holdings, Inc. v. Sys. Env't Optimization, LLC, 626 F.3d 752 (4th Cir. 2010) (adopting the in/of distinction)
- Am. Soda, LLP v. U.S. Filter Wastewater Grp., Inc., 428 F.3d 921 (10th Cir. 2005) (same)
- Dixon v. TSE Int'l Inc., 330 F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 2003) (same)
- Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. v. Gannon, 913 F.3d 704 (8th Cir. 2019) (clear forum-selection clause can waive right to removal)