Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: April 17, 2013
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comThe specific issue before the Court is what happens when one party files a lawsuit in a venue other than as contractually agreed by the parties in the forum-selection clause. In the current lawsuit, the contract between J-Crew Management and Atlantic Marine Construction Company required disputes to be resolved in the state or federal court in Norfolk, Virginia. When J-Crew ignored such requirement by filing suit in Texas, Atlantic Marine sought to dismiss or transfer the lawsuit.
Federal courts have reached divergent opinions on what venue statute should apply to such motions. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), if a lawsuit is filed in the incorrect venue, the district court must dismiss it or transfer it to a proper venue. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), if the lawsuit is filed in a proper venue, the court may transfer it to another proper venue “[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.”
In a split decision, the Fifth Circuit ruled against Atlantic Marine. It interpreted the Supreme Court’s decision in Stewart Organization Inc. v. Ricoh Corp. to require that courts rely on 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) to decide a motion to transfer to another federal court based on a forum-selection clause. It further held that “private parties should not have the power to transcend federal venue statutes that have been duly enacted by Congress and render venue improper in a district where it otherwise would be proper under congressional legislation.”
While the majority of federal circuit courts have granted motions to enforce valid forum-selection clauses, the Third, Sixth and Seventh circuits also favor the Fifth Circuit’s approach. This divergence of approach and opinion has created considerable uncertainty for the courts and contract parties with sufficient bargaining power to determine the venue for dispute resolution. Accordingly, the justices have been asked to address and resolve this rift among the circuits.
The case will be considered in the October 2013 term. Please stay tuned for updates.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Gary Young, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
The specific issue before the Court is what happens when one party files a lawsuit in a venue other than as contractually agreed by the parties in the forum-selection clause. In the current lawsuit, the contract between J-Crew Management and Atlantic Marine Construction Company required disputes to be resolved in the state or federal court in Norfolk, Virginia. When J-Crew ignored such requirement by filing suit in Texas, Atlantic Marine sought to dismiss or transfer the lawsuit.
Federal courts have reached divergent opinions on what venue statute should apply to such motions. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), if a lawsuit is filed in the incorrect venue, the district court must dismiss it or transfer it to a proper venue. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), if the lawsuit is filed in a proper venue, the court may transfer it to another proper venue “[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.”
In a split decision, the Fifth Circuit ruled against Atlantic Marine. It interpreted the Supreme Court’s decision in Stewart Organization Inc. v. Ricoh Corp. to require that courts rely on 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) to decide a motion to transfer to another federal court based on a forum-selection clause. It further held that “private parties should not have the power to transcend federal venue statutes that have been duly enacted by Congress and render venue improper in a district where it otherwise would be proper under congressional legislation.”
While the majority of federal circuit courts have granted motions to enforce valid forum-selection clauses, the Third, Sixth and Seventh circuits also favor the Fifth Circuit’s approach. This divergence of approach and opinion has created considerable uncertainty for the courts and contract parties with sufficient bargaining power to determine the venue for dispute resolution. Accordingly, the justices have been asked to address and resolve this rift among the circuits.
The case will be considered in the October 2013 term. Please stay tuned for updates.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Gary Young, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!