*1 INDUSTRIES, MONTANA, rel., POLARIS STATE OF ex THE THIR- INC., Relator, OF COURT DISTRICT v. DISTRICT, COUNTY In and For TEENTH JUDICIAL Judge Barz, YELLOWSTONE, Diane G. OF the Honorable Respondents. Presiding, No. 84-454. Jan. 1985.
Submitted Decided Feb. 1985. P.2d 471. Cashmore, Cashmore, Jr. ar- McNamer, Charles R. Thompson & gued, Billings, for relator. Anderson, & Edwards Firm, argued, Berger
Berger Law Arnold respondents. Molloy, Billings, for Opinion of the Court. HUNT delivered the Industries,
Relator filed Inc. a writ of supervisory asking control Court reverse Yellowstone County grant District Court’s order which refused to Implement to dismiss it an action filed Midland Com- pany, Inc. first,
Three raised: issues were erred *2 denying dismiss; second, provision to a in Polaris’ motion Agreement providing litigar an exclusive forum for out-of-state Montana; third, tion is valid in and enforceable and whether the District in holding Court erred that Polaris’ refusal to renew the Agreement law, thereby precluding it void matter rendered as a of availing provision Polaris from itself of the out-of-state forum Agreement. void, we Because hold the forum-selection clause is we need not remaining address the issues. April 7, 1982,
On Midland entered into a written Distributor Agreement provides with Polaris. Agreement The Polaris would sale, manufacture snowmobiles for commercial and Midland would as products. act distributor for the Agreement provides
The further arising no action on claims Agreement may by against from the be maintained Midland Court, in in except Hennepin County, court Minnesota or in the in Minneapolis, United States District Court Minnesota. year, terms, Agreement After one expired leaving the of its own inventory matters warranty parties such as and claims between the unresolved. 28-2-708,
Midland asserted that section MCA renders the forum- agree. selection clause We provides: void. That statute legal upon proceedings stipulation “Restraints Every void. or con- by in party dition a contract thereto is restricted from enforcing rights by his in proceedings the contract the usual ordinary may the tribunals or which limits time which he the within added.) (Emphasis thus enforce is rights his void.” complaint plaintiff provi- The the of in case comes within the foregoing plaintiff sions of the The to code section. seeks enforce its right by proceeding” under its in contract with Polaris a “usual the “ordinary of tribunals” hold that forum-selection Montana. We the Agreement improper clause of the the as an void under statute upon plaintiff’s rights. restraint of its the exercise We, therefore, correctly denied conclude that the District Court deny dismiss. for writ of su- to We pervisory control.
112
MR. CHIEF JUSTICES HARRI- JUSTICE TURNAGE and MR. SON, MORRISON, WEBER concur. GULBRANDSON and SHEEHY, concurring: specially foregoing opinion. concur II, Constitution, provisions Art. 1972 Montana
The of Section im- strong are further of a this State that evidence pedances may to state courts not be contenanced us. consti- open every shall be tutional statement is courts person, person, every injury of speedy remedy and afforded for impede property or character. Forum selection clauses right especially discourage speedy judicial remedy. validity refusing
A forum clause further reason for to a selection may long-arm jurisdiction. Whereas be found formerly, binding judgment in a state could not make a corporate an individual or defendant with which contacts, (Pehnoyer v. had no ties or relations U.S. Neff 565), Supreme 24 L.Ed U.S. with the decisions of the (International Washington Shoe v. State beginning Co. 95), recog- 66 S. Ct. L.Ed it became *3 provided process is if traditional nized that due non-state residents juris- play notions of and fair made them amenable to away Health v. Vir- dictions from home. Travelers Association See ginia (1950), 643, 927, 1154; L.Ed. Perkins v. 339 U.S. 70 S.Ct. 413, Benguet (1952), Mining Co. 342 U.S. 72 S.Ct. Consolidated 485; v. Ins. Co. 355 U.S. 96 L.Ed. McGee International Life 223; Hanson v. Denckla 78 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 1228, 2 78 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 1283. McGee, supra, for it was sufficient due Thus with was substantial connection suit based on a contract which had U.S., p. that state. 355 Polaris’ contact with Midland con- 223. Here any very Under stituted substantial with Montana. connections personam jurisdiction defend- concept over non-state modern ants, long-arm plainly subject this case to Montana’s step jurisdiction. patently from cases afford- It be back would may set ing jurisdiction such that forum selection clauses hold significant growth jurisdiction law. aside the of in procedure growth of the Montana’s of civil take notice rules pro- 4B Rule pertaining non-state in state courts. law defendants include jurisdiction state courts stretches to vides employees of through doing personally or claim for relief from entering into a con- in the state or the transaction of business pro- activities in this state. Those tract for materials to be furnished by the non-state resident vide the “minimum contacts” comportable jurisdiction of the non-state resident long-arm makes Co., supra. process. International Shoe with due 27-2-708,MCA, policy agree states a therefore that section meaning historically has more that has existed Montana even concepts long-arm jurisdic- with newer in our clauses tion. That makes forum-selection non-state protection even so for state void. There is a measure of necessary long- residents. If there are not the minimum contacts resident, jurisdiction no state arm with the state the non-state jurisdiction clause. exists with or without the forum selection