IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-20717

SULTANA ENTERTAINMENT, L.L.C., 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

ELISEO ROBLES GUTIERREZ; ISRAEL GUTIERREZ LEIJA; MANOLO 

ROBLES PEREZ, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CV-702

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and DENNIS and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Before us is an appeal from the district court’s enforcement of the parties’ 

forum selection clause through its dismissal of this case under the doctrine of 

forum non conveniens. We previously remanded this action to the district court 

to provide its reasons for dismissal and now review the appeal with the benefit 

of its explanation. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 12, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-20717 Document: 00514832603 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2019
No. 17-20717

2

Sultana Entertainment, LLC (Sultana), an artist management company,

sued the members of musical group La Leyenda individually (Defendants) in 

Texas state court, alleging unfair competition and breach of a representation 

agreement assigned to Sultana and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. 

Defendants removed the case to the Southern District of Texas based on 

diversity of citizenship, as all Defendants resided in Mexico. The 

representation agreement on which Sultana’s lawsuit was based includes the 

following forum selection clause, as translated from Spanish to English and 

accepted by the district court:1

For interpretation or compliance purposes or any other 

circumstance in connection to this agreement, the 

parties agree being subject to the laws of the State of 

Nuevo Leon, Mexico and to the Jurisdiction and 

Competence of the Court of Monterrey, N.L., waiving 

any other venue which could correspond to them by 

reason of its present or future address.

As the district court explained on remand, it dismissed the action 

pursuant to this forum selection clause under the doctrine of forum non 

conveniens, determining that the clause was mandatory and enforceable 

between the parties and that the relevant public interest factors did not 

override the presumption that the forum selection clause will be enforced. See 

Weber v. PACT XPP Techs., AG, 811 F.3d 758, 776 (5th Cir. 2016) (listing public 

 

1 We see no error in the district court’s consideration of this contract and the specific 

translation used. Plaintiff’s complaint referenced the contract, allowing it to be considered 

without converting the motion to one of summary judgment. See Randall D. Wolcott, M.D., 

P.A. v. Sebelius, 635 F.3d 757, 763 (5th Cir. 2011) (district court may consider “documents 

incorporated into the complaint by reference” (cleaned up)). As to the district court’s 

acceptance of the translation proffered by Defendants, Sultana does not dispute the accuracy 

of the translation, but instead whether the documents were properly translated pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Evidence 604. We review this evidentiary determination for abuse of 

discretion, and find none. Cf. Maurer v. Independence Town, 870 F.3d 380, 383 (5th Cir. 

2017) (“We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings when it determines the summary 

judgment record under an abuse of discretion standard.”).

 Case: 17-20717 Document: 00514832603 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/12/2019
No. 17-20717

3

interest factors and noting they will “outweigh a valid forum clause only in 

truly extraordinary cases”). “We review the district court’s interpretation of 

the [forum selection clause] and its assessment of that clause’s enforceability 

de novo,” but we “review for abuse of discretion the [district] court’s balancing 

of the private- and public-interest factors” implicated by a forum non 

conveniens analysis. Id. at 767–68. A careful review of the record in this case, 

a full consideration of the parties’ briefs, and a thorough analysis of the district 

court’s ruling lead us to conclude that the district court was correct in 

determining that the forum selection clause here was mandatory and 

enforceable between the parties. Moreover, the district court acted well within 

its discretion in concluding that Sultana failed to meet the “high burden of 

persuasion on the party seeking to avoid enforcement of the [forum selection 

clause].” Id. at 776. Therefore, we affirm the district court judgment for 

essentially the reasons stated by that court.

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 17-20717 Document: 00514832603 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/12/2019