outbound forum-selection clause in Alabama

2006This Court has recognized that outbound forum-selection clauses actually "`implicate the venue of a court. . . .'" Ex parte CTB, Inc. , 782 So.2d at 190 (quoting and approving language from dissent in O'Brien Eng'g Co. v. Continental Machs., Inc. , 738 So.2d 844 , 849 (Ala. 1999) (See, J., dissenting)).

2006See Ex parte CTB, Inc. , 782 So.2d 188 (Ala. 2000); and O'Brien Eng'g Co. v. Continental Machs., Inc. , 738 So.2d 844 , 845 n. 1 (Ala. 1999). "`"The proper method for obtaining review of a denial of a motion for a change of venue in a civil action is to petition for the writ of mandamus." Ex parte National Security Ins.

2025Under Alabama law, " 'a person who signs a contract is on notice of the terms therein and is bound thereby even if he or she fails to read the document.' " Ex parte Rymer, 860 So. 2d at 342 (quoting Locklear Dodge City, Inc. v. Kimbrell, 703 So. 2d 303, 306 (Ala. 1997)) (enforcing an outbound forum-selection clause when the party trying to avoid the clause claimed that he should not be bound by it because he had not read it).

2018"An outbound forum-selection clause-a clause by which parties specifically agree to trial outside the State of Alabama in the event of a dispute-implicates the venue of a court rather than its jurisdiction." Ex parte Rymer , 860 So.2d 339 , 341 (Ala. 2003).

2018Crane & Sons, Inc. v. Malouf Construction Corp. , 953 So.2d 366 , 373 (Ala. 2006), this Court held that "an outbound forum-selection clause raises procedural issues and is governed by the law of the forum jurisdiction-in this case, the law of Alabama." In M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. , 407 U.S. 1 , 10, 92 S.Ct. 1907 , 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972), the United States Supreme Court held that, for purposes of federal law, outbound forum-selection clauses "are prima facie valid and should be enforced unless enforcement is shown by the resisting party to be 'unreasonable' under the circumstances." Th

2018Crane & Sons, Inc. v. Malouf Construction Corp. , 953 So.2d 366 , 373 (Ala. 2006), this Court held that "an outbound forum-selection clause raises procedural issues and is governed by the law of the forum jurisdiction-in this case, the law of Alabama." In M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. , 407 U.S. 1 , 10, 92 S.Ct. 1907 , 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972), the United States Supreme Court held that, for purposes of federal law, outbound forum-selection clauses "are prima facie valid and should be enforced unless enforcement is shown by the resisting party to be 'unreasonable' under the circumstances." Th

2018Ex parte Leasecomm Corp. , 879 So.2d 1156 (Ala. 2003).

2018Ex parte Leasecomm Corp. , 879 So.2d 1156 (Ala. 2003).

2018Crane & Sons, Inc. v. Malouf Construction Corp. , 953 So.2d 366 , 373 (Ala. 2006), this Court held that "an outbound forum-selection clause raises procedural issues and is governed by the law of the forum jurisdiction-in this case, the law of Alabama." In M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. , 407 U.S. 1 , 10, 92 S.Ct. 1907 , 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972), the United States Supreme Court held that, for purposes of federal law, outbound forum-selection clauses "are prima facie valid and should be enforced unless enforcement is shown by the resisting party to be 'unreasonable' under the circumstances." Th

2018Crane & Sons, Inc. v. Malouf Construction Corp. , 953 So.2d 366 , 373 (Ala. 2006), this Court held that "an outbound forum-selection clause raises procedural issues and is governed by the law of the forum jurisdiction-in this case, the law of Alabama." In M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. , 407 U.S. 1 , 10, 92 S.Ct. 1907 , 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972), the United States Supreme Court held that, for purposes of federal law, outbound forum-selection clauses "are prima facie valid and should be enforced unless enforcement is shown by the resisting party to be 'unreasonable' under the circumstances." Th

2018Standard of Review " 'Mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ, to be issued only where there is (1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do *816 so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.' Ex parte Integon Corp. , 672 So.2d 497 , 499 (Ala. 1995)." Ex parte CTB, Inc. , 782 So.2d 188 , 190 (Ala. 2000). "[A]n attempt to seek enforcement of the outbound forum-selection clause is properly presented in a motion to dismiss without prejudic

2018Standard of Review " 'Mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ, to be issued only where there is (1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do *816 so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.' Ex parte Integon Corp. , 672 So.2d 497 , 499 (Ala. 1995)." Ex parte CTB, Inc. , 782 So.2d 188 , 190 (Ala. 2000). "[A]n attempt to seek enforcement of the outbound forum-selection clause is properly presented in a motion to dismiss without prejudic

2018At the risk of sounding 'provincial' (and in full awareness of the increasing trend toward the nationalization and internationalization of commerce), we note the fact remains that California's ability to guarantee that its franchisees enjoy the benefits of its Franchise Investment Law extends no farther than its own borders. (... cf. Modern Computer Systems v. Modern Banking Systems (8th Cir. 1989) 871 F.2d 734 , 742 (dis. opn. of Heaney, J.) ['The choice of law provision in the present case similarly affects the remedial reach of the Minnesota Franchise Act.

2018At the risk of sounding 'provincial' (and in full awareness of the increasing trend toward the nationalization and internationalization of commerce), we note the fact remains that California's ability to guarantee that its franchisees enjoy the benefits of its Franchise Investment Law extends no farther than its own borders. (... cf. Modern Computer Systems v. Modern Banking Systems (8th Cir. 1989) 871 F.2d 734 , 742 (dis. opn. of Heaney, J.) ['The choice of law provision in the present case similarly affects the remedial reach of the Minnesota Franchise Act.

2018In Wimsatt v. Beverly Hills Weight Loss Clinics International, Inc. , 32 Cal. App. 4th 1511 , 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 612 (1995), the plaintiffs entered into a franchise agreement that contained an outbound forum-selection clause requiring that any action arising from a dispute under the franchise agreement be brought in Virginia.

2018In Wimsatt v. Beverly Hills Weight Loss Clinics International, Inc. , 32 Cal. App. 4th 1511 , 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 612 (1995), the plaintiffs entered into a franchise agreement that contained an outbound forum-selection clause requiring that any action arising from a dispute under the franchise agreement be brought in Virginia.

2018IPC argues that requiring it to participate in the litigation process while failing to rule on the motion to dismiss requires that it either waive the right to conduct discovery and to formulate an adequate defense or waive the right to enforce the outbound forum-selection clause, based on Ex parte Spencer , 111 So.3d 713 (Ala. 2012) (holding that a party may waive a forum-selection clause by substantially invoking the litigation process).

2018IPC argues that requiring it to participate in the litigation process while failing to rule on the motion to dismiss requires that it either waive the right to conduct discovery and to formulate an adequate defense or waive the right to enforce the outbound forum-selection clause, based on Ex parte Spencer , 111 So.3d 713 (Ala. 2012) (holding that a party may waive a forum-selection clause by substantially invoking the litigation process).

2003The United States Supreme Court in Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506 , 94 S.Ct. 2449 , 41 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974), relying on its holding in The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 , 92 S.Ct. 1907 , 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972), addressed the enforcement of forum-selection clauses and upheld the enforceability of a forum-selec tion clause when the action involved claims of fraud.

2003The United States Supreme Court in Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506 , 94 S.Ct. 2449 , 41 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974), relying on its holding in The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 , 92 S.Ct. 1907 , 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972), addressed the enforcement of forum-selection clauses and upheld the enforceability of a forum-selec tion clause when the action involved claims of fraud.

2025See, e.g., Ex parte International Paper Co., 285 So. 3d 753 , 759 (Ala. 2019) (enforcing an outbound forum-selection clause when the chosen forum was the state in which the defendant's headquarters were located); Ex parte United Propane Gas, Inc., 258 So. 3d 1103 (Ala. 2018) (enforcing an outbound forum-selection clause when the chosen forum was the state in which the 12 SC-2025-0541 defendant's headquarters were located); and Ex parte Nawas Int'l Travel Serv., Inc., 68 So. 3d 823 (Ala. 2011)(enforcing an outbound forum- selection clause when the chosen forum was the state of the defendant's p

2025See, e.g., Ex parte International Paper Co., 285 So. 3d 753 , 759 (Ala. 2019) (enforcing an outbound forum-selection clause when the chosen forum was the state in which the defendant's headquarters were located); Ex parte United Propane Gas, Inc., 258 So. 3d 1103 (Ala. 2018) (enforcing an outbound forum-selection clause when the chosen forum was the state in which the 12 SC-2025-0541 defendant's headquarters were located); and Ex parte Nawas Int'l Travel Serv., Inc., 68 So. 3d 823 (Ala. 2011)(enforcing an outbound forum- selection clause when the chosen forum was the state of the defendant's p

2025See, e.g., Ex parte International Paper Co., 285 So. 3d 753 , 759 (Ala. 2019) (enforcing an outbound forum-selection clause when the chosen forum was the state in which the defendant's headquarters were located); Ex parte United Propane Gas, Inc., 258 So. 3d 1103 (Ala. 2018) (enforcing an outbound forum-selection clause when the chosen forum was the state in which the 12 SC-2025-0541 defendant's headquarters were located); and Ex parte Nawas Int'l Travel Serv., Inc., 68 So. 3d 823 (Ala. 2011)(enforcing an outbound forum- selection clause when the chosen forum was the state of the defendant's p

2025See, e.g., Ex parte International Paper Co., 285 So. 3d 753 , 759 (Ala. 2019) (enforcing an outbound forum-selection clause when the chosen forum was the state in which the defendant's headquarters were located); Ex parte United Propane Gas, Inc., 258 So. 3d 1103 (Ala. 2018) (enforcing an outbound forum-selection clause when the chosen forum was the state in which the 12 SC-2025-0541 defendant's headquarters were located); and Ex parte Nawas Int'l Travel Serv., Inc., 68 So. 3d 823 (Ala. 2011)(enforcing an outbound forum- selection clause when the chosen forum was the state of the defendant's p

2023Southern argues that the AHEDA mandates that any contract provision that requires a dealer to waive its rights to a jury trial is "void and unenforceable," citing Ex parte Terex USA, LLC, 260 So. 3d 813 , 822 (Ala. 2018), which barred the application of an outbound-forum-selection clause because of the applicability of the AHEDA.

2006Ex parte Procom Servs., 884 So.2d at 834 (citing, among other cases, Hugel v. Corporation of Lloyd’s, 999 F.2d 206, 209-10 (7th Cir.1993), and Manetti-Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci America, Inc., 858 F.2d 509 , 514 n. 5 (9th Cir.1988)).