Court Refused To Enforce Choice Of Forum Clause In Employment Contract Between American Seaman And American Employer In The Seaman's Jones Act Claim Because The Factors Under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1404(A) Weighed Slightly In Favor Of Seaman's Choice Of Forum In
DERRICK J. PARFAIT, SR., Plaintiff, v. CENAC TOWING, INC., Defendant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, GALVESTON DIVISION
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77046
October 19, 2006, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff, an American seaman, brought an action under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.S. app. § 688, against defendant, an American employer, for personal injuries allegedly occurring while the seaman was working aboard one of the employer's vessels. The employer filed an opposed motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1404(a) and an alternate motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3).
OVERVIEW: The seaman was required to sign a choice of forum agreement as a condition of employment, which prohibited the seaman from filing a personal injury suit against the employer in a court outside of Louisiana. The court denied the motions. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:921(A)(2), making choice of forum clauses in employment contracts unenforceable, showed a strong public policy against enforcing such clauses. The employer offered no persuasive argument to dismiss the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) based on the clause or to abandon the court's earlier decision holding the choice of forum agreements between American seamen and American companies were unenforceable in Jones Act claims. Though the scales were fairly even, the court found that the factors for transferring venue weighed slightly in favor of retention of the case under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1404(a) even though the seaman did not reside in the district. The case had a connection to the forum in that the employer regularly conducted business within the district, the wrong allegedly occurred in the district, and the seaman chose the forum. The employer failed to provide sufficient evidence to show inconvenience to key witnesses.
OUTCOME: The court denied the employer's motion to transfer venue and alternate motion to dismiss.
