The Effect of Forum-Selection Clauses on a District Court's Power to Compel Arbitration

By Hinchey, John W.; Burch, Thomas V. | Dispute Resolution Journal, November-January 2005 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

The Effect of Forum-Selection Clauses on a District Court's Power to Compel Arbitration


Hinchey, John W., Burch, Thomas V., Dispute Resolution Journal


Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act creates a trap for unwary drafters of arbitration clauses because it contains conflicting directions to district courts on the proper venue to hear motions to compel arbitration. For this reason, having a forum selection clause in an arbitration agreement may not achieve the desired certainty that the forum selected will be the locale for resolving any disputes that may arise. Courts have adopted three approach es for resolving § 4's internal conflict and have managed to turn the selection of arbitral venue into a process that requires the undivided attention of parties and their attorneys.

Typically, forum selection clauses provide a measure of predictability and certainty to contracts.1 However, forum-selection clauses in arbitration agreements may not provide the certainty that contracting parties expect. Because of conflicting language in § 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), much judicial confusion exists on the district courts' authority to compel arbitration in the location mandated by the parties' agreement. Specifically, § 4 provides that district courts should compel arbitration in accordance with the terms of the parties' agreement, but it also provides that the arbitration should take place within the district where the motion to compel arbitration was filed.2 Section 4 does not explain, however, how a district court should proceed when a party seeking to compel arbitration files a motion to compel in a district outside of the parties' contractually selected forum. In the absence of such guidance, courts have adopted three different approaches to resolving the issue and have turned what should be a straightforward analysis into a surprisingly complex inquiry. This article attempts to explain the three approaches and examines each in light of the Federal Arbitration Act.

First Approach: Court Can Compel Arbitration within Its Jurisdiction, Regardless of the Choice of Forum in the Parties' Contract.

Several federal circuit courts have decided that a district court has the power to compel arbitration within its district even though the parties' contract specifies that arbitration is to take place in another jurisdiction. In Econo-Car International, Inc. v. Antilles Car Rentals, Inc., for example, the parties' franchise agreement required the parties to arbitrate disputes in New York City.3 After disagreements over adjustments to the agreement, Antilles Car Rentals announced its desire to terminate the parties' relationship. Econo-Car suggested that the parties arbitrate their dispute, but Antilles refused. Consequently, Econo-Car filed a motion to compel in the District Court for the Virgin Islands, asking the district court to compel arbitration in New York City.4 The district court granted Econo-Car's request, but the 3rd Circuit reversed. According to the 3rd Circuit, § 4's directive that the district court compel arbitration in accordance with the parties' agreement was "implicit at best," while § 4's requirement that arbitration take place in the district where the motion to compel is filed was "clear and unequivocal."5 Thus, relying on its interpretation of congressional intent, the 3rd Circuit dismissed the case and ordered arbitration to proceed in the Virgin Islands.6

The 9th Circuit reached a similar result in Continental Grain Co. v. Dant & Russell, Inc., which involved a motion to compel filed in Portland and an arbitration agreement that mandated arbitration in New York.7 After a brief discussion of congressional intent,8 the 9th Circuit concluded that the arbitration should take place in Oregon.9 In addition to stating that specific language in § 4 required this result, the court also relied on the waiver doctrine in making its decision. According to the 9th Circuit, the party that filed the motion to compel in the Oregon district court was in no position to complain that the district court exercised its jurisdiction.10

Antilles Car Rentals and Continental Grain have two traits that are common among cases where district courts decide to compel arbitration within their own districts.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

The Effect of Forum-Selection Clauses on a District Court's Power to Compel Arbitration
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?