PERSONNEL STAFFING GROUP LLC MVP v. PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-15No. No. 20-55503

Summary · law.co

Holding. Forum non conveniens dismissal is unavailable when transfer to another federal district court is possible under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court reversed the dismissal and remanded for consideration of a transfer motion.

Personal Staffing Group sued Protective Insurance for breach of contract in Los Angeles Superior Court. After Protective removed the case to federal court, it moved to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, arguing that Indiana was a more suitable venue. The district court agreed and dismissed the case without prejudice.

On appeal, the court addressed whether forum non conveniens dismissal was appropriate given the availability of federal court transfer procedures. The court found that PSG had not forfeited its legal argument about forum non conveniens, even though it was raised for the first time on appeal, because the question involved pure law with no prejudicial effect to the opposing party.

The court held that federal courts cannot dismiss a case on forum non conveniens grounds when transfer to another federal district court is possible under the applicable transfer statute. Since the contract between the parties required them to submit to jurisdiction in Indiana but did not mandate litigation in a specific court, transfer to the Indiana federal district court was a viable option. Therefore, dismissal was improper, and the case was reversed and remanded.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether forum non conveniens dismissal is proper when federal court transfer is available
Whether a contractual jurisdiction clause requiring submission to state jurisdiction eliminates the option of federal court transfer
Whether an appellate argument not raised in the trial court may be considered when it presents a pure question of law

Procedural posture

The defendant removed a breach of contract action from state court to federal court, then moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, which the district court granted; the plaintiff appealed.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Personal Staffing Group (“PSG”) sued Protective Insurance Co. (“Protective”) in Los Angeles Superior Court for breach of contract. Protective removed the action to federal court and then filed a motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds. The district court concluded that Indiana was a superior forum, granted the motion, and dismissed the action without prejudice. We reverse.

1. PSG did not forfeit its argument that forum non conveniens dismissal is unavailable if transfer to a federal court is possible. If the issue presented is “purely one of law and the opposing party will suffer no prejudice as a result of the failure to raise the issue in the trial court,” we may treat the argument as not forfeited. Kaass Law v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 799 F.3d 1290, 1293 (9th Cir. 2015) (quotation marks and citation omitted). We do so here because the availability of forum non conveniens is a pure question of law, and Protective is not prejudiced by PSGs failure to raise the issue before the district court.

2. Forum non conveniens dismissal is unavailable if transfer to another federal district court is possible under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). See Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 29, 32, 75 S.Ct. 544, 99 L.Ed. 789 (1955) (transfer statute meant to avoid harsh result of dismissal); Sinochem Intl Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Intl Shipping Co., 549 U.S. 422, 430, 127 S.Ct. 1184, 167 L.Ed.2d 15 (2007) (“For the federal court system, Congress has codified the doctrine and has provided for transfer, rather than dismissal, when a sister federal court is the more convenient place for trial of the action.”); Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 15 Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 3841 (4th ed. Oct. 2020 update).

Transfer to federal district court in Indiana was possible, as the contract does not obligate the parties to litigate this action in state court. The contract requires only that the parties submit to personal jurisdiction in Indiana; it does not require that litigation be conducted in a particular forum. See Hunt Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Supreme Oil Co., 817 F.2d 75, 77–78 (9th Cir. 1987); Docksider, Ltd. v. Sea Tech., Ltd., 875 F.2d 762, 763–64 (9th Cir. 1989) (mandatory forum selection clause requires the parties to bring an action in a specific forum, to the exclusion of other forums).

Because transfer to Indiana federal court was possible, the district court erred by dismissing the action. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to allow a section 1404(a) transfer motion to be made.

REVERSED and REMANDED.