48 F. Supp. 3d 894
E.D. La.2014Background
- Waste Management sues Jefferson Parish over unpaid invoices and contract performance related to the Jefferson Parish Sanitary Landfill.
- Landfill Time Contract was formed with Sexton in 1996; in 1998 Sexton assigned it to Waste Management.
- Waste Management operated Phases I–IIIB; phases IIIB later transitioned to IESI via a 2012 IESI Contract.
- Waste Management alleges Phase IVA development by IESI interfered with Phase IIIB operations and required relocation of a haul road.
- Waste Management terminated the Landfill Time Contract effective August 31, 2013; suit filed December 20, 2013 in EDLA.
- Jefferson Parish moves to dismiss for forum non conveniens or for failure to state a claim; motion denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Atlantic Marine controls forum non conveniens here | Clause permissive; Atlantic Marine not controlling. | Clause mandatory; Atlantic Marine governs enforcement and transfer. | Atlantic Marine applies only to mandatory clauses. |
| Whether the 24th JDC is an available and adequate forum | Clause permits jurisdiction in 24th JDC; it is available and adequate. | Clause directs forum; 24th JDC should be sole forum. | Yes; 24th JDC is available and adequate. |
| How private/public factors weigh under forum non conveniens | Private/public factors favor Waste Management’s chosen forum. | Factors favor preselected (Louisiana) forum. | Private factors neutral/slightly pro-Eastern District; public factors neutral; plaintiff's forum preserved. |
| Whether dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate | Clause permissive; not an exclusive defense; no 12(b)(6) bar. | Clause provides affirmative defense; 12(b)(6) potentially warranted. | Not appropriate; permissive clause does not bar relief. |
| What framework applies when forum selection clause is permissive | Atlantic Marine inapplicable; rely on traditional forum non conveniens analysis. | Atlantic Marine framework applicable when forum clause is permissive. | Court applies traditional forum non conveniens analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of New Orleans v. Municipal Administrative Services, Inc., 376 F.3d 501 (5th Cir. 2004) (consent to jurisdiction is not exclusive without clear intent)
- Keaty v. Freeport Indonesia, Inc., 503 F.2d 955 (5th Cir. 1974) (forum-selection clause permissive, not exclusive)
- Caldas & Sons, Inc. v. Willingham, 17 F.3d 123 (5th Cir. 1994) (consent to jurisdiction does not mean exclusive forum)
- DTEX v. BBVA Bancomer, S.A., 508 F.3d 785 (5th Cir. 2007) (distinguishes mandatory vs permissive forum clauses)
- Atlantic Marine Constr. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the W. Dist. of Tex., 134 S. Ct. 568 (2013) (enforces valid forum-selection clauses; adjusts §1404 analysis)
- Gonzalez v. Chrysler Corp., 301 F.3d 377 (5th Cir. 2002) (availability/adequacy of forum antecedent to private/public factors)
- Sinochem Int’l Co., Ltd. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007) (limits forum non conveniens to abroad or rare cases)
- In re Union Carbide Corp. Gas Plant Disaster at Bhopal, India in December, 1984, 634 F. Supp. 842 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (availability of an adequate alternative forum matters)
- American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1994) (forum non conveniens abroad primary use; Bremen framework)
- M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1972) (prima facie validity of forum-selection clauses)