Sheehan v. Viking River Cruises, Inc., Case No. 20-cv-0753 (WMW/DTS)
| Decision Date | 10 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 20-cv-0753 (WMW/DTS) |
| Parties | Timothy Sheehan and Mary Sheehan, Plaintiffs, v. Viking River Cruises, Inc., and Viking Ocean Cruises II LTD, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Plaintiffs Timothy Sheehan and Mary Sheehan commenced this action against Defendants Viking River Cruises, Inc. (VRC), and Viking Ocean Cruises II, LTD (VOC), for injuries sustained during a transatlantic cruise. Before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint on the grounds of forum non conveniens. (Dkt. 11) For the reasons addressed below, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.
Timothy Sheehan and Mary Sheehan are Minnesota residents. VRC, a California corporation with its principal place of business in California, markets and sells European cruises to customers in the United States and Canada. But VRC does not operate any vessels. VRC serves solely as a sales agent for cruises operated by VOC.
VOC is a Bermuda corporation with its principal place of business in Hamilton, Bermuda. VOC maintains and operates the Viking Star, the vessel on which Timothy Sheehan allegedly was injured. Defendants conduct advertising, business, and the operations of their cruises in jurisdictions around the world. But the operational headquarters for Defendants is located in Basel, Switzerland.
In the fall of 2018, Plaintiffs purchased tickets for a cruise. During the sales transaction, Plaintiffs received an email confirmation that included VRC's Ticket Sale Contract, which governs the sale of the trip. The Ticket Sale Contract provides that VRC acts solely as a sales agent for the owners and operators of the ships. The contract also provides "that passage on any vessel upon which [VRC] is acting solely as a sales agent is governed by and subject to the passenger ticket contract terms and conditions" and includes a link to the Passenger Ticket Contract. The Passenger Ticket Contract confirms that VRC acts solely as a sales agent for the carrier, which in this case was VOC.
Section 24 of the Passenger Ticket Contract includes a choice of law provision that states:
Plaintiffs were sent a paper copy of the Passenger Ticket Contract along with their tickets on January 4, 2019. Plaintiffs received emails on February 14, 2019, and February 23, 2019, respectively, that included travel documents and the Passenger Ticket Contract. On February 28, 2019, Plaintiffs embarked on their cruise from Miami.
Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that, in March 2019, Timothy Sheehan was injured on a cruise ship operated by Defendants during a transatlantic voyage when he tripped over a basket in the ship's lounge. Defendants were negligent by failing to properly maintain and safeguard the premises and by failing to warn of a dangerous hazard, the complaint alleges. Plaintiffs also contend that, as a result of Defendants' negligence, Mary Sheehan has suffered the loss of Timothy Sheehan's services and companionship that she would have received in the usual course of married life.
On April 23, 2020, Defendants moved to dismiss the case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, arguing that the forum-selection clause in the Passenger Ticket Contract mandates the adjudication of this dispute in Switzerland.1
The doctrine of forum non conveniens is the appropriate means to challenge a forum-selection clause that directs the state or foreign forum in which to adjudicate a civil dispute. Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49, 60(2013).2 A district court may decline jurisdiction because the action should be tried in another forum, even though venue and jurisdiction are otherwise proper. Mizokami Bros. of Ariz., Inc. v. Mobay Chem. Corp., 660 F.2d 712, 717 (8th Cir. 1981). A valid forum-selection clause is afforded controlling weight in all but the most exceptional cases. Atl. Marine, 571 U.S. at 63. Under both federal law and Minnesota law a forum selection clause is prima facie valid and, therefore, enforced unless it is unjust, unreasonable, or invalid. United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Weber, Inc., 434 F. Supp. 3d 729, 732 (D. Minn. 2020). Although some courts conflate the validity and enforceability inquiries, the better course of analysis is first to determine whether the forum-selection clause is valid under general contract principles and, if so, then determine whether the forum-selection clause should be enforced. Rogovsky Enter., Inc. v. Masterbrand Cabinets, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 3d 1034, 1040-41 (D. Minn. 2015).
A forum-selection clause is valid if it is the product of a freely negotiated agreement, "unaffected by fraud, undue influence, or overweening bargaining power." M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 12 (1972). If it is the product of either party's "fraud oroverreaching," a forum-selection clause is invalid. Id. at 15; see also M.B. Rests., Inc. v. CKE Rests., Inc., 183 F.3d 750, 752 (8th Cir. 1999). Plaintiffs do not argue that the forum-selection clause at issue here is the result of fraud or overreaching or that the forum-selection clause is otherwise invalid. The sole issue before the Court is whether the forum-selection clause should be enforced.
When considering whether to grant a motion to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens, courts generally consider both private-interest and public-interest factors. Atl. Marine, 571 U.S. at 62-63. But when the parties' contract contains a valid forum-selection clause, arguments pertaining to the parties' private interests are not germane, because the plaintiff's choice of forum merits no weight. Id. at 63, 64. Instead, when a valid contractual forum-selection clause is at issue, the private-interest factors weigh entirely in favor of the preselected forum. Id. At 64. In such circumstances, a court considers only the public-interest factors, which rarely defeat a motion to dismiss based on a forum-selection clause. Id. Public-interest factors may include the administrative difficulties arising from court congestion, the interest in having localized controversies decided in the home forum, and the interest in adjudicating a diversity-jurisdiction case in a forum that is "at home" with the law. Id. at 62 n.6. Under such circumstances, the nonmoving party must show that the public-interest factors "overwhelmingly" disfavor a transfer or dismissal. Id. at 67.
Plaintiffs argue that the forum-selection clause is unenforceable because a trial in Switzerland will be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that they will be deprived of their day in court. Plaintiffs observe that Swiss courts require the parties to be physicallypresent, but Timothy Sheehan's physician opined that he cannot travel internationally for the foreseeable future. Plaintiffs' argument is premised on a private interest. Atlantic Marine governs this analysis and clearly provides that, when the parties have agreed to a valid forum-selection clause, the validity of which Plaintiffs do not contest, "[o]nly under extraordinary circumstances unrelated to the convenience of the parties" should a court decline to enforce the clause. Id. at 64 (emphasis added); see also Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bryan, No. 17-cv-1136 (WMW/DTS), 2017 WL 7370057, at *4 (D. Minn. Nov. 28, 2017) (). Accordingly, Plaintiffs' argument is unavailing as it is contrary to the clear legal standard addressed in Atlantic Marine. See In re Union Elec. Co., 787 F.3d 903, 909 (8th Cir. 2015) ().
Plaintiffs also contend that the forum-selection clause is unenforceable because it is included in an adhesion contract and, therefore, is contrary to the public policy of Minnesota. "A contractual choice-of-forum clause should be held unenforceable if enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which [the] suit is brought, whether declared by statute or by judicial decision." M/S Bremen, 407 U.S. at 15. Plaintiffs rely on Hauenstein & Bermeister, Inc. v. Met-Fab Industries, Inc., in which the Minnesota Supreme Court explained that "[f]orum section clauses in contracts which are termed adhesion—'take-it-or-leave-it'—contracts and which are the product of unequalbargaining power between the parties are unreasonable." 320 N.W.2d 886, 891 (Minn. 1982). The Hauenstein court explained that boilerplate language in a form contract prepared...
To continue reading
Request your trial