Warner v. St Johns Northwestern Military Academy Inc
2:18-cv-00730
E.D. Wis.Jan 31, 2019Background
- In 2012 James Warner, then 12, attended a St. John’s Northwestern Military Academy summer camp; his parents signed an Enrollment Agreement containing a Wisconsin choice-of-law clause and an exclusive forum-selection clause designating Waukesha County Circuit Court.
- Warner alleges that fellow cadet Alex Forstrom (then 15) sexually assaulted him in a dormitory on July 30, 2012; parents filed suit in federal court in May 2018 claiming Title IX and multiple state-law tort claims against St. John’s, the Forstroms, and others.
- St. John’s moved to dismiss under forum non conveniens based on the Enrollment Agreement’s forum-selection clause; the Forstroms moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter (diversity) jurisdiction, arguing supplemental jurisdiction is improper if the federal claim is dismissed.
- The central legal dispute concerned enforceability of the forum-selection clause: whether (1) it binds Warner (a non-signatory/minor), (2) it is ambiguous, and (3) allegedly exculpatory provisions of the Agreement void the clause.
- The court concluded the forum-selection clause is valid and enforceable under federal and Wisconsin law, dismissed St. John’s from federal court without prejudice, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims against the Forstroms, dismissing the entire action without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of forum-selection clause against non-signatory minor | Warner: he didn’t sign the Enrollment Agreement so clause can’t bind his Title IX claim | St. John’s: Warner is closely related/intended beneficiary; foreseeable he’d be bound | Clause binds Warner; parents’ signature and beneficiary status make clause enforceable against him |
| Ambiguity of forum-selection clause | Warner: clause ambiguous as to whether it covers claims by child, parents, or both; ambiguous terms construed against drafter | St. John’s: clause expressly covers any litigation arising from the contract or enrollment, including personal injury/tort actions | Clause is unambiguous and covers claims by Warner and his parents |
| Voidness of Agreement due to exculpatory provisions | Warner: Agreement contains broad waivers/exculpatory language that make entire contract void as against public policy, so forum clause unenforceable | St. John’s: forum clause separable, presumptively enforceable even if some contract provisions are void; severability clause supports enforcement | Forum-selection clause enforceable regardless; divisible/severability doctrine and federal precedent allow enforcement even if other provisions void |
| Disposition of remaining state-law claims after federal claim dismissal | Plaintiffs: ask court to retain supplemental jurisdiction so claims proceed in federal court | Forstroms: diversity lacking; court should decline supplemental jurisdiction if federal claim dismissed | Court dismissed federal claim via forum non conveniens and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims; entire action dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49 (2013) (forum-selection clauses generally control; plaintiff’s forum choice merits no weight)
- Bonny v. Society of Lloyd’s, 3 F.3d 156 (7th Cir. 1993) (federal common law presumes forum-selection clauses valid; exceptions narrowly construed)
- Jackson v. Payday Financial, LLC, 764 F.3d 765 (7th Cir. 2014) (in diversity cases, apply contract’s choice-of-law to determine enforceability of forum clause to avoid split rules)
- Hugel v. Corp. of Lloyd's, 999 F.2d 206 (7th Cir. 1993) (third-party can be bound by forum clause if closely related/foreseeable beneficiary)
- Muzumdar v. Wellness Int'l Network, Ltd., 438 F.3d 759 (7th Cir. 2006) (forum-selection clauses enforceable even when underlying contract alleged to be void; courts need not decide voidness before enforcing clause)
- Pietroske, Inc. v. Globalcom, Inc., 685 N.W.2d 884 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004) (Wisconsin enforces forum clauses unless procedural plus substantive unconscionability shown)