On July 17, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a Jones Act seaman's personal injury suit on forum non conveniens grounds. The decision turned on the enforceability of a forum selection clause in the seaman's employment contract mandating that litigation take place in England.
Background
Marek Matthews was employed as a captain for Tidewater Crewing, Ltd. on offshore supply vessels managed by Tidewater, Inc. (collectively, "Tidewater") between 1982 and 2016. While working on Tidewater's assignments in the Red Sea, Matthews claimed he was exposed to hazardous chemicals such as benzene, xylene, and methanol, causing him end-stage renal disease, kidney failure, and prostate cancer.
Matthews, and other plaintiffs, sued Tidewater in Louisiana state court asserting claims of negligence and unseaworthiness under the Jones Act and general maritime law. Tidewater removed the action to the Eastern District of Louisiana and, subsequently, moved for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and, alternatively, under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. In support of its motion, Tidewater pointed to a "Working Agreement" that Matthews signed prior to departing on any months-long shift. Contained therein was a forum selection clause requiring any dispute arising out of Matthews' employment with Tidewater to be litigated in the High Court of Justice in London, England.
The district court granted Tidewater's motion based on forum non conveniens grounds, reasoning that the forum selection clause in the Working Agreement was valid and enforceable, and the public-interest factors favored the contractually chosen foreign forum.
Fifth Circuit Appeal and Ruling>
On appeal, Matthews did not challenge the district court's ruling that the public interest factors favored the foreign forum but, instead, argued that the forum selection clause was unreasonable under the circumstances.1 Under Fifth Circuit jurisprudence, a plaintiff may demonstrate that a forum selection clause is unreasonable under the circumstances if:
(1) the incorporation of the forum selection clause into the agreement was the product of fraud or overreaching; (2) the party seeking to escape enforcement will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court because of the grave inconvenience or unfairness of the selected forum; (3) the fundamental unfairness of the chosen law will deprive the plaintiff of a remedy; or (4) enforcement of the forum selection clause would contravene a strong public policy of the forum state.
Matthews relied on the second and fourth exceptions. With respect to the second exception, Matthews emphasized the inconvenience of traveling to England on account of his health conditions. The Court, however, rejected this argument, reasoning that Matthews' health conditions, though serious, do not give him a right to bring suit in Louisiana and that modern technology enables plaintiffs to remotely litigate in foreign forums.
Regarding the fourth exception, Matthews contended that the forum selection clause offends Louisiana public policy. In support of this argument, Matthews relied on a Louisiana statute that declares forum selection clauses contained in an employment contract "null and void except where the choice of forum clause or choice of law clause is expressly, knowingly, and voluntarily agreed to and ratified by the employee after the occurrence of the incident which is the subject of the civil or administrative action." La. R.S. § 23:921A(2). Because Matthews did not ratify the forum selection clause after the onset of his injuries, he claimed that Section 23:921A(2) renders the clause invalid. Matthews further supported his argument with statements of law from Sawicki v. K/S Stavanger Prince, 802 So. 2d 598 (La. 2001), where the Louisiana Supreme Court concluded that "La. Rev. Stat. 23:921A(2) is an expression of strong Louisiana public policy concerning forum selection clauses."
The Fifth Circuit, therefore, was forced to analyze Louisiana's strong public policy against pre-dispute forum selection clauses and contrary federal public policy. As Matthews claims lied in admiralty, the Fifth Circuit noted that "forum selection clauses in admiralty cases are presumptively valid and enforceable," and that a plaintiff must make a strong showing to overcome this presumption and show that the clause is unreasonable. Here, Matthews' employers, Tidewater, Inc. and Tidewater Crewing, Ltd., were non-Louisiana corporations. In addition, Matthews's injuries were sustained outside the United States while servicing Egyptian oil wells in the Red Sea, and Matthews was not a Louisiana citizen. Because Section 23:921A(2) protects Louisiana citizens from being forced to litigate their case in a foreign forum, and Matthews has scant, if any, connections to Louisiana, the Fifth Circuit concluded that Matthews failed to make a "strong showing" that the forum selection clause is unreasonable under the circumstances, stating: "Even if Louisiana's public policy is relevant under a Bremen analysis, its particular application in this case does not overcome the federal public policy's presumption of a maritime forum-selection clause's validity." Thus, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.
Although the Fifth Circuit did not consider whether forum selection clauses are enforceable under the Jones Act, district courts in this circuit routinely hold that they are. See, e.g., Matthews v. Tidewater Crewing, Ltd., No. CV 21-1530, 2023 WL 11816253 (E.D. La. Apr. 25, 2023); Brister v. ACBL River Operations LLC, No. CV 17-6035, 2018 WL 746390 (E.D. La. Feb. 7, 2018). As such, Jones Act employers should continue to seek dismissal of an employee's claims based on forum non conveniens when the employment contract requires litigation in a forum other than that selected by the employee.
Footnote
1. Though Matthews' counsel contested whether the forum selection clause is enforceable under the Jones Act, the Fifth Circuit declined to consider this issue because it was not briefed on appeal.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.