forum selection clause in Louisiana

2025“A forum selection clause is a provision in a contract that mandates a particular state, county, parish, or court as the proper venue in which the parties to an action must litigate any future disputes regarding their contractual relationship.” Fidelak v. Holmes European Motors, L.L.C., 2013-0691, p. 3 (La. 12/10/13), 130 So.3d 851, 853 .

2022“A forum selection clause is a provision in a contract that mandates a particular state, county, parish, or court as the proper venue in which the parties to an action must litigate any future disputes regarding their contractual relationship.” Fidelak v. Holmes European Motors, L.L.C., 13-0691, p. 3 (La. 12/10/13), 130 So.3d 851, 853 .

2006Commodore filed an exception of improper venue based on a forum selection clause contained in the ticket allegedly purchased by Ms. Lee, which clause designates New York City as the proper forum. 3 Commodore cites Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 , 111 S.Ct. 1522 , 113 L.Ed.2d 622 (1991) 4 for the proposition that a passenger ticket for an ocean voyage is a maritime contract governed by the general maritime law, and that forum selection clauses contained in such tickets are Invalid and enforceable if fundamentally fair.

2006Commodore filed an exception of improper venue based on a forum selection clause contained in the ticket allegedly purchased by Ms. Lee, which clause designates New York City as the proper forum. 3 Commodore cites Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 , 111 S.Ct. 1522 , 113 L.Ed.2d 622 (1991) 4 for the proposition that a passenger ticket for an ocean voyage is a maritime contract governed by the general maritime law, and that forum selection clauses contained in such tickets are Invalid and enforceable if fundamentally fair.

2024Co., 148 So. 3d at 881 . 24-C-114 2 The insurance policy issued by Starr contains more than a forum selection clause though.

2024However, in its opposition to the writ application, Garcia Roofing noted Mr. D’Aquin’s failure to include the exhibits and provided a copy of the roofing contract containing the forum selection clause at issue, which is Exhibit A to the petition. 23-C-604 2 position in Shelter, 148 So.3d at 879-80 , and determined that Article 44(A) did not prohibit “parties from contracting in advance of litigation that suits arising out of that contract must be brought in a specific venue.” Further, while Mr. D’Aquin incorrectly references to an arbitration clause in his writ application, it appears that he

2019Bandak Assuranceforeningen Gard, 525 U.S. 815 , 119 S.Ct. 52 , 142 L.Ed.2d 40 (1998), wherein, based on Bremen, this court upheld enforcement of a forum selection clause in a federal law maritime context, stating that such clauses are “prima facie valid and should be enforced unless enforcement is shown by the resisting party to be unreasonable under the circumstances.” Lejano, 705 So. 2d at 166 .

2011Bandak Assuranceforeningen Gard, 525 U.S. 815 , 119 S.Ct. 52 , 142 L.Ed.2d 40 (1998), the supreme court addressed a forum selection clause in an admiralty action.

2019Bandak Assuranceforeningen Gard, 525 U.S. 815 , 119 S.Ct. 52 , 142 L.Ed.2d 40 (1998), wherein, based on Bremen, this court upheld enforcement of a forum selection clause in a federal law maritime context, stating that such clauses are “prima facie valid and should be enforced unless enforcement is shown by the resisting party to be unreasonable under the circumstances.” Lejano, 705 So. 2d at 166 .

2011Bandak Assuranceforeningen Gard, 525 U.S. 815 , 119 S.Ct. 52 , 142 L.Ed.2d 40 (1998), the supreme court addressed a forum selection clause in an admiralty action.

2019Bandak Assuranceforeningen Gard, 525 U.S. 815 , 119 S.Ct. 52 , 142 L.Ed.2d 40 (1998), wherein, based on Bremen, this court upheld enforcement of a forum selection clause in a federal law maritime context, stating that such clauses are “prima facie valid and should be enforced unless enforcement is shown by the resisting party to be unreasonable under the circumstances.” Lejano, 705 So. 2d at 166 .

2011Bandak Assuranceforeningen Gard, 525 U.S. 815 , 119 S.Ct. 52 , 142 L.Ed.2d 40 (1998), the supreme court addressed a forum selection clause in an admiralty action.

2014Further, as explained above, Lejano involved the enforceability of a forum selection clause under federal law, not Louisiana law. 27 Id. at 171 . 28 01-0528 (La. 12/7/01), 802 So. 2d 598 . 29 05-2023 (La. 9/6/06), 938 So. 2d 662 , 675. 9 Finally, in Meyer & Assoc. v. Coushatta Tribe of La.,30 this court considered whether the Coushatta Tribe had waived its sovereign immunity via forum selection clauses in its contracts with an engineering firm.

2013Finally, in Power Marketing Direct, Inc. v. Foster, 05-2023 (La.9/6/06), 938 So.2d 662, 675 , a non-maritime case, this Court cited Lejano for the proposition that "forum selection clauses are legal and binding in Louisiana and should be enforced absent a clear showing that enforcement would be unreasonable or unjust, or that the clause is invalid for such reasons as fraud or overreaching.” However, in Power Marketing, the enforceability of a forum selection clause was not at issue and thus this statement is mere dicta.

2006Smith v. Doe, 991 F.Supp. 781, 784 (E.D.La.1998), treats the forum selection clause as a venue issue as does Smith v. Commodore Cruise Line Ltd., 124 F.Supp.2d 150 (S.D.N.Y., 2000). 5 See also Digital Enterprises, Inc. v. Arch Telecom, Inc., 95-30 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/28/95) , 658 So.2d 20 and Pique’-Weinstem-Pique’ Architects, Inc. v. New Orleans Aviation, 99-1231 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/25/00) , 762 So.2d 76 . | aFinally, we note that the plaintiff has cited no cases in which a court has held it to be error to raise the forum selection clause as a matter of venue.

2006Smith v. Doe, 991 F.Supp. 781, 784 (E.D.La.1998), treats the forum selection clause as a venue issue as does Smith v. Commodore Cruise Line Ltd., 124 F.Supp.2d 150 (S.D.N.Y., 2000). 5 See also Digital Enterprises, Inc. v. Arch Telecom, Inc., 95-30 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/28/95) , 658 So.2d 20 and Pique’-Weinstem-Pique’ Architects, Inc. v. New Orleans Aviation, 99-1231 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/25/00) , 762 So.2d 76 . | aFinally, we note that the plaintiff has cited no cases in which a court has held it to be error to raise the forum selection clause as a matter of venue.

1998Based on the factors set forth by the Supreme Court in Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571 , 73 S.Ct. 921 , 97 L.Ed. 1254 (1953), the law to be applied to this factual situation is the Panamanian law which recognizes the provisions of the forum selection clause requiring all litigation to be brought in the Republic of Panama.

1998Based on the factors set forth by the Supreme Court in Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571 , 73 S.Ct. 921 , 97 L.Ed. 1254 (1953), the law to be applied to this factual situation is the Panamanian law which recognizes the provisions of the forum selection clause requiring all litigation to be brought in the Republic of Panama.

2013Thompson Tree & Spraying Service, Inc. v. White-Spunner Const., Inc., 10-1187 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/11) , 68 So.3d 1142 , writ denied, 11-1417 (La.9/30/11), 71 So.3d 290 ; see also Shelter Mutual Ins.

2011In support, Rising Resources cites Thompson Tree & Spraying Service, Inc. v. White-Spunner Constr., Inc., 10-1187 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/11) , 68 So.3d 1142 , writ denied, 11-1417 (La.9/30/11), 71 So.3d 290 , wherein the third circuit, on public policy grounds, |fideclined to enforce a forum selection clause.

1998The author notes that "the central characteristic of the maritime action in rem—in rem in the strict sense—is that `a judicial sale in the proceeding conveys title good against the world.'" As the author indicates, state courts cannot do that. [6] 619 So.2d 741 (La.App. 4th Cir.1993), writ denied, 626 So.2d 1179 (La.1993). [7] 611 So.2d 691 (La.App. 4th Cir.1992), writ not considered, 613 So.2d 986 (La.1993). [8] Compare Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corporation, 487 U.S. 22 , 108 S.Ct. 2239 , 101 L.Ed.2d 22 (1988)[held that federal law governs the decision whether to grant a motion to t

1993Prado v. Sloman Neptun Schiffahrts A.G., 558 So.2d 712 (La.App. 4 Cir.1990); reversed and remanded on procedural grounds, 565 So.2d 930 (La.1990); 611 So.2d 691 (La.App. 4 Cir.1992); writ not considered 613 So.2d 986 (La.1993).

1998The author notes that "the central characteristic of the maritime action in rem—in rem in the strict sense—is that `a judicial sale in the proceeding conveys title good against the world.'" As the author indicates, state courts cannot do that. [6] 619 So.2d 741 (La.App. 4th Cir.1993), writ denied, 626 So.2d 1179 (La.1993). [7] 611 So.2d 691 (La.App. 4th Cir.1992), writ not considered, 613 So.2d 986 (La.1993). [8] Compare Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corporation, 487 U.S. 22 , 108 S.Ct. 2239 , 101 L.Ed.2d 22 (1988)[held that federal law governs the decision whether to grant a motion to t

1993Prado v. Sloman Neptun Schiffahrts A.G., 558 So.2d 712 (La.App. 4 Cir.1990); reversed and remanded on procedural grounds, 565 So.2d 930 (La.1990); 611 So.2d 691 (La.App. 4 Cir.1992); writ not considered 613 So.2d 986 (La.1993).

1998Prado v. Sloman Neptun Schiffahrts-A.G., 558 So.2d 712 (La.

1993Prado v. Sloman Neptun Schiffahrts A.G., 558 So.2d 712 (La.App. 4 Cir.1990); reversed and remanded on procedural grounds, 565 So.2d 930 (La.1990); 611 So.2d 691 (La.App. 4 Cir.1992); writ not considered 613 So.2d 986 (La.1993).

2025App. 5 Cir. 3/30/04), 870 So.2d 1097 (holding a provision in the subject contract that stated “Jurisdiction is Pikeville[,] Kentucky[,]” was a forum selection clause).

2024Id. 24-C-114 4 DISCUSSION Forum Selection Clauses in General A forum selection clause is a contract provision that mandates a particular state, county, parish, or court as the proper venue in which the parties to an action must litigate any future disputes regarding their contractual relationship.

2022Code art. 2320 for the actions of its employees, Ms. Sheffield and Mr. Verhoff, because the scope of their employment “including authorizing payment to vendors, which allowed them to play a key role in [Mr.] Grundmeyer’s and [Mr.] Coerver’s scheme to misappropriate funds owed to Universal.” Universal relies on the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision in LeBrane v. Lewis in support of that argument. 292 So.2d 216 (La. 1974). 5 The Tauber Defendants argue that the trial court did not err when it concluded that the forum selection clause present in the four contracts between Tauber and Universal is

2019In Lawrence v Continental Insurance Company, 199 So.2d 398 (3rd Cir. 1967), a case that did involve an insurance contract, perhaps the most respected judge in Louisiana history, Al Tate, explained that the provision at issue expresses a public policy: The statute incorporates a public policy determination that no contract issued in Louisiana covering a Louisiana subject shall deny the Louisiana insured the benefit of a practical remedy in Louisiana courts, thus prohibiting a requirement that he litigate his claim in an inconvenient foreign forum or submit to its adjudication by some private tr

2014As the Court recognized in Bremen, the elimination of uncertainties 41 Bremen, 407 U.S. at 13 . 42 In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 10-1823 (La. 5/10/11), 63 So. 3d 955, 962 . 43 Id. at 963 [citing Louisiana Smoked Products, Inc. v. Savoie’s Sausage and Food Products, Inc., 96-1716 (La. 7/1/97), 696 So. 2d 1373,1380-81 )]. 17 relative to the location of litigation by agreement in advance on an acceptable forum to both parties is an indispensable element of trade, commerce and contracting.44 Our ruling, holding forum selection clauses prima facie valid and generally enforceable, serves

2014App. 3 Cir. 7/22/13) (unpublished). 4 Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. of Louisiana, et al.,13-1977 (La. 12/6/13), 129 So. 3d 525 . 2 preliminary matter we first briefly address Shelter’s assertion that the “Terms and Conditions” containing the forum selection clause were not negotiated terms between the parties and therefore not part of its agreement with Rimkus.