Servewell Plumbing, LLC v. Federal Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 March 2006
• Docket Number: No. 05-1548.,05-1548.
• Parties: SERVEWELL PLUMBING, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 786

439 F.3d 786

SERVEWELL PLUMBING, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-1548.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: October 13, 2005.

Filed: March 2, 2006.

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant was Lawrence W. Jackson of West Memphis, AR. Kent J. Rubens of West Memphis, AR appeared on the brief.

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee was Colin R. Jorgensen of Little Rock, AR. Stephen R. Lancaster of Little Rock appeared on the brief.

Before RILEY, JOHN R. GIBSON, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.

Servewell Plumbing, LLC appeals the dismissal of its claim against Federal Insurance Company as surety on a labor and material payment bond issued to Summit Contractors, Inc. The district court¹ dismissed the claim for improper venue based on a forum selection clause in the contract between Summit and Servewell, which required any claim against Summit or Federal, as Summit's bonding company, to be brought in Duval County, Florida. On appeal, Servewell argues that the dismissal of its claim was error because the forum selection clause was unenforceable. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

This case arises out of a contract dispute between the plaintiff Servewell, a Tennessee corporation, and Summit, a Florida corporation, relating to the construction of an apartment complex in Pulaski County, Arkansas. In January 2002, Summit, the general contractor on the project, entered into a subcontract with Servewell, for Servewell to perform plumbing work at the apartment complex. Servewell alleges that during the course of construction Summit breached its agreement and as result it owed $123,342.37 for labor and materials Servewell had furnished for the project. The subcontract between Servewell and Summit contained a forum selection clause, which provided that the exclusive venue and jurisdiction for any claim against Summit or its bonding company would be in Duval County, Florida.² Notwithstanding this provision, in February 2003, Servewell filed suit against Summit and the owner of the project in Pulaski County Circuit Court, Arkansas. In December 2003, the Arkansas circuit court dismissed Servewell's claim against Summit for improper venue, relying on the forum selection clause in the contract between Summit and Servewell. Servewell appealed the dismissal, which the Arkansas Supreme Court later affirmed. Servewell Plumbing, LLC v. Summit Contractors, Inc., ___ S.W.3d ___, 2005 WL 1406336 (Ark. June 16, 2005).

On July 27, 2004, while its appeal was still pending, Servewell filed a second action in Pulaski County, this time naming Federal as the sole defendant. Acting as Summit's surety on the project, Federal had issued a labor and material payment bond in the amount of $5,847,000. Servewell's action sought a monetary judgment against Federal as surety on Summit's bond for the $123,342.37 Summit allegedly owed to Servewell. Although like the subcontract, the bond document contained a forum selection clause, this forum selection clause provided for venue and jurisdiction in the county where the project was located, i.e., Pulaski County, Arkansas.³ However on June 16, 2003, during the course of the Pulaski County litigation between Servewell and Summit, Federal and Summit agreed for valuable consideration to waive the venue and jurisdictional requirement of the bond to the extent necessary to permit Summit to enforce the forum selection clause in its subcontract with Servewell.⁴

After removing the matter to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Federal moved to dismiss for improper venue, relying on the forum selection clause in the subcontract between Servewell and Summit. The district court granted Federal's motion, rejecting Servewell's arguments that the forum selection clause in the subcontract was unenforceable. In doing so, the court reasoned that the clause was fair and reasonable since "Servewell freely entered into a contract with Summit providing that any dispute would be litigated in Duval County, Florida, despite the fact that the Project was in Arkansas. Servewell, thus, could anticipate having to litigate in Florida." Following the district court's dismissal of its claim without prejudice, Servewell filed a timely notice of appeal.

The parties do not dispute the meaning, scope, or applicability of the forum selection clause in the subcontract, all of which would be questions of contract interpretation that we would review de novo. See e.g., Rainforest Cafe, Inc. v. EklecCo, LLC, 340 F.3d 544, 546 (8th Cir. 2003); Dunne v. Libbra, 330 F.3d 1062, 1063 (8th Cir.2003). Instead, the parties' disagreement centers on whether the district court should have enforced the agreed-to clause, a decision we review for an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Marano Enter. of Kan. v. Z-Teca Restaurants, L.P., 254 F.3d 753, 757 (8th Cir.2001); M.B. Restaurants, Inc. v. CKE Restaurants, Inc., 183 F.3d 750, 753 (8th Cir. 1999); see also Terra Int'l, Inc. v. Miss. Chem. Corp., 119 F.3d 688, 691-92 (8th Cir.1997) (applying de novo standard to district court's construction of forum selection clause, but recognizing abuse of discretion standard for question of whether to enforce the clause).

Initially we must address the question of whether to apply state or federal law in determining the enforceability of the clause. Because "the enforceability of a forum selection clause concerns both the substantive law of contracts and the procedural law of venue," Sun World Lines, Ltd. v. March Shipping Corp., 801 F.2d 1066, 1068-69 (8th Cir.1986), there is some disagreement among the circuits over whether state or federal law applies, see M.B. Restaurants, 183 F.3d at 752 n. 4 (collecting cases), and we have yet to adopt a definitive position on the issue. Id.; Rainforest Cafe, 340 F.3d at 546.⁵ Nor must we do so here, since both Arkansas and Florida follow the federal standard announced by the Supreme Court in M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 92 S.Ct. 1907, 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972), see, e.g., Nelms v. Morgan Portable Bldg. Corp., 305 Ark. 284, 808 S.W.2d 314, 316-17 (1991); Manrique v. Fabbri, 493 So.2d 437, 440 (Fla.1986), and neither party argues that the application of one or another body of law would materially affect the outcome. See M.B. Restaurants, 183 F.3d at 752 (avoiding Erie question and applying federal law to determine enforceability of forum selection clause where parties did not argue federal and state standards differed). Thus, for purposes of this appeal, we apply the standard announced in Bremen and adopted by the highest courts of Florida and Arkansas, while considering state substantive law when called for under that standard. See Farmland Indus., 806 F.2d at 852.

Under Bremen, "[f]orum selection clauses are prima facie valid and are enforced unless they are unjust or unreasonable or invalid." M.B. Restaurants, 183 F.3d at 752 (citing Bremen, 407 U.S. at 15, 92 S.Ct. 1907); Nelms, 808 S.W.2d at 316-17; Manrique, 493 So.2d at 440. Where, as here, the forum selection clause is the fruit of an arm's-length negotiation, the party challenging the clause bears an especially "heavy burden of proof" to avoid its bargain. Bremen, 407 U.S. at 17, 92 S.Ct. 1907. Only "some compelling and countervailing reason" will excuse enforcement of a bargained-for forum selection clause. Id. at 12, 92 S.Ct. 1907; accord Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 593-94, 111 S.Ct. 1522, 113 L.Ed.2d 622 (1991).

Servewell does not suggest that the forum selection clause in the subcontract was the product of fraud or overreaching; instead, it focuses on the supposed unreasonableness and injustice of requiring it to litigate its claim against Federal in Florida. Servewell first argues that the forum selection clause is unreasonable and unjust because Servewell lacks "minimum contacts" with Florida, and therefore Florida lacks personal jurisdiction over it. This argument is wholly without merit. "In judging minimum contacts" the focus is "on `the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation,'" Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 775, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984) (quoting Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977)) (emphasis added). Servewell, the party objecting to Florida's exercise of personal jurisdiction, is the plaintiff in this case, not the defendant. The Supreme Court does not require a plaintiff, like Servewell, to have minimum contacts with the forum State before permitting that State to assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant and has "upheld the assertion of jurisdiction where such contacts were entirely lacking." Id. at 779, 104 S.Ct. 1473. Because Servewell's contacts with Florida do not dictate whether Florida may exercise personal jurisdiction over Federal, Servewell's personal jurisdiction argument cannot render the agreed-to forum selection clause unenforceable.

Next, Servewell argues that the forum selection clause is unreasonable and unjust because litigation in Florida would be inconvenient. Following Bremen, we have held that mere "inconvenience to a party is an insufficient basis to defeat an otherwise enforceable forum selection clause." M.B. Restaurants, 183 F.3d at 753.⁶ Instead, a party seeking to avoid his promise must demonstrate that proceeding in "the contractual forum will be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that he will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court." Dominium Austin Partners., LLC v. Emerson, 248 F.3d 720, 727 (8th Cir.2001) (quoting Bremen, 407 U.S. at 18, 92 S.Ct. 1907). The "great expense" Servewell claims it will incur if forced to secure witnesses located in Arkansas for litigation in Florida, falls well short of depriving it of its day in court. Compare McDonnell Douglas Corp. v....