Opinion
Civil Action No. 04-0445 Sect. 'T' (1).
July 19, 2004
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a motion by the defendant, Teco Ocean Shipping, Inc., to dismiss the suit by the plaintiff, Randall J. Smith, without prejudice on the grounds of improper venue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). The parties waived oral argument and this matter was submitted for the Court's consideration on April 7, 2004. After a review of the record, the pleadings, and the applicable jurisprudence, this Court finds that the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice should be GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND:
Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, defendant, Teco Ocean Shipping, Inc. (hereinafter "TECO") pursuant to the Jones Act and General Maritime Law seeking to recover for injuries allegedly sustained while in the course and scope of his employment as a seaman.
For purposes of this motion the relevant background facts are as follows. On or about February 20, 2003, plaintiff was injured, while employed as a regular, full-time seaman by TECO. TECO is a Florida corporation, headquartered in and operating out of Tampa, Florida. In March 2003, plaintiff received and submitted an application for the "Vessel Wage Continuation Plan" (hereinafter "VWCP"), an optional supplemental benefit plan provided by TECO to employees injured while in the service of a TECO vessel. The VWCP application contained a forum selection clause which provided that "In consideration of the benefits received . . . I agree:
. . . that all suits involving the Vessel Wage Continuation Plan or any work-related injury or illness shall be brought in either the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Hillsborough County in the State of Florida or the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, to the exclusion of any other court or jurisdiction.
TECO seeks to dismiss the suit for improper venue based on the forum selection clause.
II. ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES:
A. Defendant's Arguments in Support of Dismissal:
TECO moves for dismissal of this lawsuit on the grounds of improper venue, without prejudice, in favor of the agreed upon forum. They contend the VWCP contains a valid forum selection clause. TECO argues that because plaintiff elected employment in Florida, it is not a consequence of his employment that he must file suit in Florida. They argue that the Florida venue is only a consequence of plaintiff's choice to receive benefits pursuant to TECO's VWCP, and therefore, the forum selection clause is not so unreasonable as to make it unenforceable.
TECO recognizes that the Louisiana legislature has declared forum selection clauses in employment contracts to be null and void as against public policy. La.R.S. 23:921(A)(2). TECO submits that the Louisiana statute and its public policy considerations have no application here. They argue that Federal law governs the validity of a forum selection clause even to the exclusion of a forum state's policy against enforcement. See Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh, Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988). Furthermore, they assert that the Louisiana Supreme Court has held La.R.S. 23:921(A)(2) is procedural in nature, Sawicki v. K/S Stavenger Prince, 802 So.2d 598 (La. 2001), and a federal court sitting in admiralty is not to apply the procedural law of any state, but rather must apply the procedural rules of the federal courts including the procedural aspects of a maritime tort action under federal admiralty jurisdiction. Pope Talbot v. Hawn, 346 U.S. 406, 409 (1953).
However, should the Court find La.R.S. 23:921(A)(2) applicable, TECO argues that the forum selection clause is still valid and enforceable pursuant to the statute's exception for those clauses "expressly, knowingly, and voluntarily agreed to . . . after the occurrence of the incident . . ." La.R.S. 23:921 (A)(2). They argue that since the application for VWCP benefits clearly contained the forum selection clause and plaintiff executed the application after the incident in question, he expressly, knowingly and voluntarily ratified the choice of forum expressed therein.
B. Plaintiff's Argument in Opposition to Dismissal:
The plaintiff argues that the forum selection clause contained in the VWCP application is unenforceable because "enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which the suit is brought." M/S Bremen v. Zapata Offshore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 92 S.Ct. 1907 (1972). He argues that Louisiana has a strong public policy against forum selection clauses in employment contracts as expressed in La.R.S. 23:921(A)(2). Plaintiff asserts that the principal cause of the release obligation was the forum selection limitation and because forum selection clauses are against Louisiana public policy, the release is invalid.
While plaintiff urges the court to follow Louisiana's public policy against forum selection clauses, he nonetheless argues that the VWCP was not part of the plaintiff's contract of employment and therefor La.R.S. 23:921(A)(2) is not directly applicable. Therefore, plaintiff argues the statute's exception for knowing, post-injury ratification is also not applicable.
Plaintiff argues that the forum selection clause in the VWCP application should be viewed as a release instead of part of an employment contract. Plaintiff argues that the release of his right to choose this Honorable Court as proper venue was not fairly or fully comprehended by the plaintiff and therefor is not valid. He argues that the defendant secured this release by using a misleading application because the application title, "Vessel Wage Continuation Plan Application for Benefits," did not inform the plaintiff it contained a substantial release of his rights. Plaintiff asserts that he submitted the VWCP application without knowledge or understanding that it was a release of his right to choose Louisiana as a venue and the clause is invalid.
Plaintiff argues, in the alternative, that should the court find La.R.S. 23:921(A)(2) applicable, the forum selection clause is invalid because he did not expressly, knowingly, and voluntarily agree to the forum selection clause and therefore he never ratified the clause.
III. LAW AND ANALYSIS:
A. Law on Forum Selection Clauses:
Maritime Law recognizes the validity of forum selection clauses, and the United States Supreme Court has held that a court sitting in admiralty must enforce a forum selection clause unless enforcement is shown by the resisting party to be unreasonable and unjust, or that the clause is invalid for such reasons as fraud or overreaching. M/S Bremen v. Zapata Offshore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 11 (1972). There is a strong presumption in favor of enforcement of forum selection clauses, and "a valid forum selection clause is given controlling weight in all but most exceptional cases." Marinechance Shipping, Ltd. v. Sebastian, 143 F.3d 216, 220, n. 16 (5th Cir. 1998). A forum selection clause is presumptively valid, and the party challenging enforcement of the clause must make a strong showing that the clause should be set aside. The Bremen, 407 U.S. at 15-16. To make a strong showing that a forum selection clause is unreasonable, and therefore unenforceable, the challenging party must prove that trial in the contractual forum would "be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that he will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court." The Bremen, 407 U.S. at 18.
Forum selection clauses are enforceable against seaman in the context of personal injury lawsuits brought against his employer. Marinechance Shipping, Ltd. v. Sebastian, 143 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 1998). This is so even under the circumstances, where the seaman is considered to have little bargaining power. Id. at 221.
When a motion to dismiss seeks to enforce a valid and reasonable forum selection clause designating a forum other than that chosen by the plaintiff, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to "persuade the court that the contractual forum is sufficiently inconvenient to justify retention of the dispute." In re Ricoh Corp., 870 F.wd 570, 573) 11th Cir. 1989). The plaintiff must show exceptional facts or circumstances to invalidate the forum selection clause. Id. at 574.
B. The Court's Analysis:
Plaintiff considers the VWCP forum selection clause a "release" within the meaning of Garret v. Moore-McCormack Co., 63 S.Ct. 246 (1942) and Castillo v. Spiliada Mar Corp., 937 F.2d 240 (5th Cir. 1991). However, these cases are materially distinguishable and have no application here. Garret and Castillo dealt only with a seaman's release and waiver of substantive rights of recovery against his employer. Here, the forum selection clause at issue has no effect upon plaintiff's substantive rights.
No part of the VWCP application or its forum selection clause have been proven ambiguous. As such, plaintiff's intent is immaterial, and parole evidence thereof is inadmissable to invalidate any provision contained in the VWCP application. Nor can it be argued that there was any misunderstanding. The language in the application makes it clear that a lawsuit for a work related injury must be brought in the State of Florida.
Plaintiff has failed to show any exceptional facts or circumstances as required to invalidate the forum selection clause.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's Motion to Dismiss for improper venue without prejudice is hereby GRANTED.