Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12-929 | 5th Cir. | Oct 9, 2013 | Dec 3, 2013 | 9-0 | Alito | OT 2013 |
Holding: A forum-selection clause may be enforced by a motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which provides that, "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented."
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Alito on December 3, 2013.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Opinion analysis: Tough day for the Fifth Circuit (Ronald Mann, December 4, 2013)
- Argument analysis: Justices signal strong support for forum-selection clauses (Ronald Mann, October 11, 2013)
- Argument preview: Government contractor urges Court to validate forum-selection clause (Ronald Mann, October 3, 2013)
- Case granted on venue issue (Lyle Denniston, April 1, 2013)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| 01/25/2013 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 25, 2013) |
| 02/25/2013 | Brief of respondent J-Crew Management, Inc. in opposition filed. |
| 02/25/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed. |
| 02/25/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Texas Civil Justice League filed. |
| 03/07/2013 | Reply of petitioner Atlantic Marine Construction Company, Inc. filed. |
| 03/13/2013 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 29, 2013. |
| 04/01/2013 | Petition GRANTED. |
| 04/22/2013 | The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 17, 2013. |
| 04/22/2013 | The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 16, 2013. |
| 05/16/2013 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioner. |
| 05/21/2013 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the resondent. |
| 06/17/2013 | Brief of petitioner Atlantic Marine Construction Company, Inc. filed. |
| 06/17/2013 | Joint appendix filed. ( Statement of costs received.) |
| 06/24/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed. |
| 06/24/2013 | Brief amici curiae of New England Legal Foundation, et al. filed. |
| 06/24/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Professor Stephen E. Sachs in support of neither party filed. |
| 07/22/2013 | CIRCULATED. |
| 07/23/2013 | SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, October 9, 2013. |
| 08/02/2013 | Record from U.S.C.A. fo 5th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER. |
| 08/02/2013 | Record from U.S.D.C. for Western District of Texas is electronic and located on PACER. |
| 08/16/2013 | Brief of respondent J-Crew Management, Inc. filed. (Distributed) |
| 08/23/2013 | Motion of Professor Stephen E. Sachs in support of neither party for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. |
| 08/23/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of American Subcontractors Association filed. (Distributed) |
| 08/26/2013 | Petitioner's response in opposition to motion of Professor Stephen E. Sachs. |
| 08/30/2013 | Respondents' opposition in response to motion of Professor Stephen E. Sach. |
| 09/11/2013 | Respondents' amended opposition to motion of Professor Stephen E. Sachs |
| 09/16/2013 | Reply of petitioner Atlantic Marine Construction Company, Inc. filed. (Distributed) |
| 10/01/2013 | Motion of Professor Stephen E. Sachs for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument DENIED. The parties, however, should be prepared to address at oral argument the arguments raised in the brief of Professor Stephen E. Sachs as amicus curiae in support of neither party. |
| 10/09/2013 | Argued. For petitioner: William S. Hastings, Dallas, Tex. For respondents: William R. Allensworth, Austin, Tex. |
| 12/03/2013 | Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED Alito, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. |
| 01/06/2014 | JUDGMENT ISSUED. |
Issue: (1) Whether the Court”s decision in”Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.“changed the standard for enforcement of clauses that designate an alternative federal forum, limiting review of such clauses to a discretionary, balancing-of-conveniences analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); and (2) whether district courts should allocate the burdens of proof among parties seeking to enforce or to avoid a forum-selection clause.