April 5, 2022
LES Insights
By John C. Paul; D. Brian Kacedon; Anthony D. Del Monaco; Shawn S. Chang
A mandatory and exclusive forum-selection clause in an agreement that confers jurisdiction on a state or foreign forum may prevent an additional suit brought in a different forum that relies on the agreement even if the claim is not for breach of that agreement.
Two Canadian companies, Precision Weather Solutions and Farmer’s Edge, entered into a confidentiality agreement containing a mandatory and exclusive forum-selection clause, which mandated resolution of any disputes in the Courts of Manitoba, Canada. After multiple disputes between the companies, a litigation was commenced in Manitoba. While that litigation was ongoing, Precision Weather Solutions filed a parallel lawsuit against Farmer’s Edge and its wholly owned subsidiary, Farmer’s Edge (US), in the Eastern District of Virginia asserting, among other things, trade secret misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Acts. The district court in the Eastern District of Virginia, however, dismissed the action for improper venue. Precision Weather Solutions then moved for reconsideration of the court’s decision.
The first question for the court was whether the forum-selection clause was applicable. Precision Weather Solutions argued that the forum-selection clause was limited to disputes arising under the confidentiality agreement and that it did not allege a breach of the confidentiality agreement in the complaint. The court disagreed. Instead, the court found that the complaint alleged the parties entered into “a series of agreements,” including the confidentiality agreement, and the trade secrets were detailed within the complaint in reference to the terms of the confidentiality agreement. Because Precision Weather Solutions’ allegations all arose out of and were related to the parties’ agreement, the court found that the claims were within the scope of the forum‑selection clause’s language. Thus, the court found there was no error in its prior evaluation of the validity of the forum-selection clause.
Next, the court considered whether the dismissal of the action would be proper under a traditional analysis of forum non conveniens to determine whether the forum was “convenient.” Here, there was no question that the Canadian forum was available and adequate because the parties had already begun proceedings in Manitoba, Canada. That certain remedies Precision Weather Solutions sought were not available in the foreign forum did not render the Canadian forum inadequate. The court considered the various public and private interest factors and determined that (1) it would be more convenient to litigate in Canada because the parties were two Canadian companies and the subsidiary of a Canadian company, (2) it would be inconvenient to litigate in a duplicative proceeding concerning the same factual questions, and (3) Canada has a “local interest” in deciding its local controversies.
The court also found it was unnecessary to decide jurisdictional venue issues under general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, when the action was dismissed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
Finally, the court found that any claim of fraud must be plead with particularity as to the fraudulent inducement of the forum-selection clause itself. A showing that the overall circumstances of the contract or that the contract itself was induced by fraud was insufficient to demonstrate that the forum-selection clause was not enforceable.
An agreement that contains a forum-selection clause that provides mandatory and exclusive jurisdiction in a forum for dispute resolution may also prevent suits in other forums for matters not involving breach of the agreement.
The Precisions Weather order can be found here.
Copyright © Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm’s clients.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.