downloads this case is about the district courts refusal to honor the venue provision in two sophisticated parties agreement providing for the non exclusive jurisdiction of the united states just for the business of a long b a in conjunction with considered as little your honor but that is not faced with a venue provision that we have in this contract with the parties expressly agreed that there will be no challenge to the jurisdiction based on half a century and that indeed the case your honor in the absence of venue provision where the parties have expressed lead read not to raise those types of challenges not to raise before not inconvenience issues that are identical to  woman's following illinois and the others file someplace else two months later and the court said you have to take into account that consumerism so i come back to my question what equitable considerations should the court take into account  this baby just based on or not convenience issues so so your argument is is that by saying in the contract that the parties waveform non convenience challenges that they were in the in the fact saying we're waiving inconvenience which is section fourteen zero for a in lack of venue which is fourteen zero six eight so isn't it appropriate then to look at what the factors are that are considered there  if the court the trial court used those tests then maybe that's a problem but that's not but that's not even your argument your argument is that it does that there should have been any equitable cases to four that under the first final rule the consideration of equitable considerations is an exceptional our cases are columbia plaza in utah american the top american says that when unconditionally stipulated to the jurisdiction consideration component of the first to file rule there's no way that this provision to be interpreted made any sense because otherwise you could never bring a lawsuit in d c because considerations are always going to dictate that you go to the southern district of georgia no it doesn't just because you wouldn't win does it mean that the contract have some buyer's remorse now that it's been that was negotiated this way but it doesn't mean that the provision has no your honor i contend it does does not have any name because as i said before any mall suit any more sued under this project than this is an eight billion dollars eight year destruction project where the parties and do with the equitable considerations would be when they entered into this venue provision and unconditionally meet the venue in the d c district court they absolutely knew what they were waving at that point and they knew that the only if if you had filed in the district court as you did here and they didn't file any place else they couldn't make that or they could not make that or so then this contractual provisions that you're talking about do have meaning only apart from the situation where you have simultaneous while they don't have a meeting when they compelling interpret them and that is then under every scenario under this contract you can never bring a case in the d c just never because the balance of convenience  is not that this is is somehow less superior than a computer stamp that says eight o'clock on one second just wrong because art your honor because our stamp is based on the us naval it they handed it over write it as the clock struck the clock is somehow insufficient when you clearly win that on the on i guess what would be a fine one of the fact that the if that fought who fall for it and i think interestingly there shouldn't be any doubt that the district court did exactly what the president of this court required to do but moreover exactly what the contractor told him to do it's a newly minted argument that you should only look at time here's what the contractor told the district court in its very first filing its motion to enjoy equitable factors should be considered there were four or equitable factors that were considered by my count in columbia plaza those weren't necessarily the same equitable factors that the district board considered here in the appellants argue that many of those equitable factors at the district were considered were formed on convenience factors so why isn't it an abuse of discretion for the district court to consider equitable factors that are not among the columbia plaza fact i think two responses you're on first of all the international papers case decided or decided by the circuit also held that there were a number of other factors looked at i think significantly the district court looked at choice of all this case is  all pursuant to the contract i do not believe that would be formed on convenient parking secondly some of the factors that the district court looked at would perhaps be looked at as a form non convenient argument using any for non convenience motion contract is argument in this case is somehow bigger parties can tell what factors to decide what factors to analyze the first to file challenge encompasses a body of law in th in the eleventh circuit and those of those are the factors that a court must look at but it isn't of hardly appellants argument that the court considered things like where the witnesses were located and that's really a convenience to the parties argument as opposed to a comedy type argument i guess both can be used to the parties and comedy for example in the southern district of georgia it would be easier to subpoena people it would be easier to have than a trial there would be no way that you could has certain witnesses a construe the contract is that the default venue is the district of the district of columbia the only way to upset the fall is if somebody files elsewhere and they w successful first afile challenge in so even if it's not a mandatory form selection clause of lease the parties agree that this was the fault jurisdiction so the speak in that there really wasn't given enough weight by industry who are in the even if this case isn't really completely on all fours with atlantic marine atlantic marine stance with a proposition that that clause should then in order to enforce that you follow a motion to transfer that case respect we have nothing to do with a first of the file challenge but i mean the supreme court said that that we the reason that they're deciding the case that way is that they do want to make sure that the parties get the benefit of the bargain when they have a exclusive form selection clause and so i guess my point is is that i know it's a different context didn't the parties is not do any special way particularly when there is another jurisdiction that has much more significance to the controversy here in the southern district of georgia versus the district of columbia where there was no particular significance at all as  wanted to put it bluntly the contractor could have filed this lawsuit in a number of different places this is simply one place of the party says you may file it doesn't say anything about where the contract the file score we looked hard and what they filed below we were on aware that they ever raise the precise issue that this was a mandatory forum selection cause law and in fact as i mentioned earlier then the one to first the court that you should look at equitable considerations decisive points the parties contract expressly authorize first to file challenges given the owners brought such a challenge and the district court properly exercised its discretion in deciding the first to file shall i want to briefly in my remaining this notion that somehow the owners filed a declaratory judgment action i think what the district court wrote in his opinion and i'm referring to page fifteen of sixteen million dollars back we had to file this lawsuit to get that money back or follow counterpoint as the others are saying that you didn't raise that in the mediation so this claim isn't really properly made anyway that this is a make way your honor if you take a look at what the provision in the mediation agreement provides article twenty seven of contract once a party either party takes the matter to mediation and it's unsuccessful the contract has expressly provides either party may proceed to litigation once the mediation is with so it's very clear they raise these issues nobody resolve these issues that equities of tickler he should be considered we were telling the court is the iniquity of the defendant filing a declaratory judgment the posture itself as the plaintiff and to to essentially avoid the venue provision in article thirty four i'm reading from our motion to enjoin it reach sixteen after we quote article thirty four point three we specifically say there is for the court should not engage in a typical analysis of that if you've got a non exclusive then you provision in conjunction with a provision says that says you will not challenge the venue based on for nine convenience or improper venue it constitutes a mandatory applause because in both of those cases the courts specifically says that the equitable considerations in some cases should be ignored should be ignored and that they the rule constitutes