No. 19-1187

Matco Tools Corporation, et al. v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-03-30
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: arbitration-agreement civil-procedure contract-validity district-court-discretion federal-jurisdiction forum-non-conveniens forum-selection-clause ninth-circuit-rule procedural-exception subject-matter
Latest Conference: 2020-05-21
Question Presented (from Petition)

Courts adjudicating forum non conveniens motions seeking to enforce forum-selection clauses as a general rule do not consider whether the underlying contract is valid. Instead, they determine only whether the forum-selection clause itself is valid and enforceable. Here, however, the Ninth Circuit held this rule does not apply when the forum-selection clause is contained in an allegedly invalid arbitration agreement.

The question presented here is: May a district court create an exception to the rule that the validity of a forum-selection clause does not depend upon the validity of the underlying contract containing the clause, based upon the subject matter of the contract?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

May a district court create an exception to the rule that the validity of a forum-selection clause does not depend upon the validity of the underlying contract containing the clause, based upon the subject matter of the contract?

Docket Entries

2020-05-26
Petition DENIED.
2020-05-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/21/2020.
2020-04-16
Waiver of right of respondent John Fleming to respond filed.
2020-03-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 29, 2020)

Attorneys

John Fleming
Peter Scott RukinRukin Hyland & Riggin LLP, Respondent
Matco Tools Corporation, et al.
Robert J. Carty Jr.Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Petitioner