Close X

Attorney Spotlight

How does Eli Richardson's past work with the federal government inform his client interactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo


Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

U.S. Supreme Court Revises Venue Change Analysis

Publications

January 7, 2014

In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court recently rejected the present analysis used by federal courts when deciding transfer of venue motions under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) by requiring those courts to give almost absolute deference to valid forum-selection clauses. Atlantic Marine Construction Co., Inc. vs. United States District Court for W.D. Tex., #12-929, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 8775 (U.S. DEC. 3, 2013). 

Previously, federal courts often balanced the interests of the parties, and gave weight to the plaintiff's choice of forum, when deciding a venue transfer motion. The Supreme Court has now held, however, that a forum selection clause trumps a plaintiff's choice of forum, and a balancing of the parties' interests is unnecessary when the parties have agreed to a forum in an enforceable contract. 

In Atlantic Marine, a Texas District Court refused to transfer venue of a suit to Virginia despite a contract provision stating that all disputes would be litigated in that forum. The court's analysis balanced public and private interest factors, including consideration of the fact that the contract in question included work on a construction project located in Texas. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling. 

On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, concluding that a valid forum selection clause, representing the parties' agreement to what they considered to be the most proper forum, normally would be the determining factor. While courts may consider public interest factors, the Supreme Court declared those considerations would only "rarely defeat a transfer motion," and the forum-selection clause would control except in the most "exceptional cases."1 

Importantly, Atlantic Marine did not address the question of whether a defendant in a breach of contract action is entitled to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) where the action was filed in a district other than the one chosen by the parties in their forum-selection clause. 

Because the Supreme Court's opinion will make it significantly more likely that motions for change of venue based upon agreed-to forum selection clauses will be granted, parties should give increased consideration to including those clauses when drafting contracts. 

For additional information on the topic of this alert, please contact the author listed above.

________________________________________
1 The Supreme Court further concluded that federal courts should apply the same analysis to motions to change venue based on the doctrine of forum non-conveniens when a forum-selection clause provides for a state or foreign venue.

Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.