Although Louisiana appellate court cases reach conflicting conclusions on the applicability of the anti-forum selection provision in La. Rev. Stat. 51:1407, these decisions are not binding on this Court, and none of them involved an international contract that implicates the strong case law favoring enforcement of forum selection clauses in the international context. Compare Tulane Indus. Laundry, Inc. v. Quality Lube Oil, Inc., 779 So.2d 99, 102 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/14/01) (holding in contract action that jurisdiction and venue waivers were against Louisiana public policy embodied in La. Rev, Stat. 51:1407); La. Safety Assoc. of Timbermen Self Ins. Fund v. A-l Pallet Co., 855 So.2d 895, 898 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/24/03) (questioning in dicta the validity of parties' contractual venue provision under Louisiana law and jurisprudence); with Pitts, Inc. v. Ark-La Resources, L.P., 717 So.2d 268, 270 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/19/98) (upholding a forum selection clause in contract); Luffey v. Federicksburg Properties of rex., 2003 WL 22900625, at *3 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/10/03) (noting that Louisiana has long held that forum selection clauses are valid and enforceable).
Both the Louisiana Fourth Circuit and the Louisiana Fifth Circuit courts of appeal have also issued opinions refusing to enforce forum selection clauses, but those decisions are based on the particular facts of the cases and do not stand for the general proposition that forum selection clauses are per se violative of public policy in Louisiana. See Tulane Indus. Laundry, Inc. v. Quality Lube & Oil, Inc., 00–0610 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/24/01), 779 So.2d 99; Gerrets v. Gerrets, 06–0087 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/10/07), 948 So.2d 343; and Aquatic Lodging, LLC v. Bayou Boys Boat Rental, LLC, 11–382 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/28/11), 82 So.3d 562.
Both the Louisiana Fourth Circuit and the Louisiana Fifth Circuit courts of appeal have also issued opinions refusing to enforce forum selection clauses, but those decisions are based on the particular facts of the cases and do not stand for the general proposition that forum selection clauses are per se violative of public policy in Louisiana. See Tulane Indus. Laundry, Inc. v. Quality Lube & Oil, Inc., 00–0610 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/24/01), 779 So.2d 99 ; Gerrets v. Gerrets, 06–0087 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/10/07), 948 So.2d 343 ; and Aquatic Lodging, LLC v. Bayou Boys Boat Rental, LLC, 11–382 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/28/11), 82 So.3d 562.
In reaching that decision, the Tulane court cited the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, noting that the statute prohibits, as against public policy, the parties to a contract from agreeing that a particular court would have jurisdiction to decide a contractual dispute when no minimum contacts existed in relation to the chosen court. 00–0610 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/24/01), 779 So.2d 99. La. R.S. 51:1407.
In fact, the contacts must be `so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against it on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities.' International Shoe Co., 326 U.S. at 318, 66 S.Ct. at 159, 90 L.Ed. at 95.Tulane Industrial Laundry, Inc. v. Quality Lube Oil, Inc., 00-0610, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/24/01), 779 So.2d 99, 101-02. See also A.O. Smith Corp. v. American Alternative Ins. Corp., 00-2485 (La.App.
The Plaintiff asserts that enforcement of the forum selection clause in this case contravenes a strong public policy against such clauses and is unreasonable and unjust. It cites Tulane Indus. Laundry, Inc. v. Quality Lube Oil, Inc., 00-0610 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1/24/01), 779 So.2d 99. In that case, the forum selection purported to allow a Louisiana company to sue a Mississippi resident in Louisiana, even though the Mississippi resident had no minimum contacts with Louisiana and had not submitted to personal jurisdiction there.
Such provision is in question under Louisiana law and the jurisprudence. See, Tulane Industrial Laundry, Inc. v. Quality Lube Oil, Inc., 00-0610 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1/24/01), 779 So.2d 99; La.C.C.P. art. 44; and La.R.S. 51:1407. Accordingly, the venue of Winn Parish is appropriate in this case.