CASE 3-2 ATLANTIC MARINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ET AL. United States Supreme Court 134 S. Ct. 568 (2013) FACTS: Atlantic Construction Company, located in Virginia, subcontracted with Texas-based J-Crew Management. Despite the contract containing a clause stating that any dispute would be litigated in Virginia, J-Crew brought suit against Atlantic in the District Court for the Western District of Texas for failure to pay J-Crew for work it performed. Atlantic moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that the forum selection clause required the suit to be brought in Virginia. The District Court denied Atlantic’s motions, claiming that Atlantic did not show why it was in the interest of justice to hear the trial in Virginia. Atlantic appealed, and the court of appeals denied Atlantic’s motions on the ground that a Texas court was proper venue given that the parties entered into and performed the agreement in that district. Atlantic appealed to the Supreme Court. ISSUE: Did the forum-selection clause give Atlantic the ability to dismiss the case? REASONING: The ruling in this case revolved around USC §1404(a), which states: “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” According to the Court, the statute holds that a forum selection clause should be enforced with a motion to transfer rather than the motion to dismiss that Atlantic sought. The Supreme Court argued that the district and appeals courts erred in outright dismissing the case. Under the Court’s own precedent set by Stewart Organization, Inc. v Ricoh Corp., a case may only be dismissed when a venue is “wrong” or “improper.” And even if a forum-selection clause renders a venue to be “wrong” or “improper,” the clause in question in this case is to be enforced under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, meaning the case is to be transferred to another federal court should the current forum prove inappropriate. To put another dent in the lower courts’ decisions, the Court held that Stewart places upon the plaintiff the burden of establishing that transfer to the contractual forum is unwarranted. Thus, the district court erred in placing the burden of proving that the preselected forum was appropriate upon Atlantic instead of requiring J-Crew to prove that a transfer was disfavored due to public-interest factors.
DECISION: The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the court of appeals decision; the lower court was to decide whether Atlantic had grounds to transfer the case instead of dismissing it.
SIGNIFICANCE: This case serves as an example of a challenge to the appropriateness of the venue, and demonstrates who has the burden of proof in such a dispute.
CRITICAL THINKING What is the single fact that has the greatest impact on this decision? What is the logic of relying on this fact to such a large extent?
ETHICAL DECISION MAKING Building on your answer to the critical thinking question above, identify the value that the court is leaning on to prop up its reasoning about why the courts should have acted to enforce the original agreement between the two contending parties.
There are various “Cases” located throughout the chapters. Review these cases in the assigned chapters for this week and select one case that you would be interested in researching for this week. Compose a written response that includes the following: Identify the Case with the number and title. Answer the Critical Thinking and Ethical Decision Making questions for the case in a one page document. Support your responses from the reading material from this week. Save your work in MS Word or as a PDF.