The Honor able Timothy C. St ance u, of the United States Court of I nternational Trade , * sitti ng by desig nation. 1 07-5300-cv Yakin v. Tyler Hill Corp, Inc. 1 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS 2 F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T 3 August Term, 2008 4 (Argued: Fe bruar

y 6, 2009 Dec ided: May 12, 2009) 5 Docke t No. 07-5300-c v 6

_____________________ 7 S AR A Y A K IN , 8 9 Plaintif f-Appellee , 10 11 v. 12 13 T Y LER H I LL C OR PO R ATI ON , 14 15 De fe nd an t- Ap pe lla nt, 16 17 18 T Y LER H I LL C AMP , I NC ., T I M BER L AKE C OR PO R ATI ON , T I M BER L AKE C AM P W EST 19 C OR PO R ATI ON , T I M BER L AKE C EN T ERS , I NC ., T LC K I D S G R OUP , I NC . AND T I M BERLAKE 20 M AN AG E ME NT C O RP ., 21 22 De fe nd an ts. 23

_____________________ 24 25 Be fore : S A CK , B.D

. P ARKE R , Circuit Judges , and S TA NCEU , Judge , Court of International Trade

. * 26 27 Def

endant- Appellant appe als from a decision of the United States District Court for the 28 Easter

n District of Ne w York ( Fe uerstein, J .) re manding the ac tion to the Supreme Court of the 29 State of Ne w York, County of Na ssau, bec ause of

a for um selection cla

use. A F F I RMED . 30 312 1 D A N I EL A. K A LI SH , Whit e Plains, NY, for Plain tiff2 Ap pe lle eSa ra Y

ak in

. 3 4 R ODNE Y E. G O U LD , Rubin, Hay & G ould, P.C ., 5 Fr aming ham, MA, for De fe nd an t- Ap pe lla nt T y le r H ill 6 Corporati on. 7 8

_____________________ 9 10 B AR R I NGTON D. P ARKE R , Circuit Judge : 11 12 Def

endant- Appellant Tyler Hill Corporation appe als from a decision of the United States 13 District Court for the Ea stern District of N ew Yor k (F euer stein, J

) enf orcinga for

um selection 14 clause and re manding the ca se to the Supreme Court of the State of Ne w York, County of 15 Nassau. We a ffirm the district c ourt’s dec ision, although for somewhat diff

ere nt rea sons from 16 tho se e xpre sse d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt

. 17 The fa cts are uncontested. Plaintiff-A ppellee Sar a Yakin attended summer c amp during 18 the summers of 1996 throug h 1999 at the Tyler Hill Camp in Tyler Hill, Pennsylvania oper ated 19 by

Tyler Hill Corporation. In order to enroll for c amp ea ch summer, Ya kin completed an 20 application for

m containing various ter

ms. Those applica

ble to Yakin’s e nrollment for the 21 summe r o f 1 99 9 in c lud e d a c la us e that pr ov ide d: 22 23 I t is ag ree d that the venue and plac e of tria l of any dispute that may

arise out of 24 thi s A g re e me nt o r o the rw ise , to wh ic h T yle r H ill Camp, or its a g e nts , is a

pa rt y 25 shall be in Nassa u County , New Y ork. 26 27 At the time Yakin submitted the application, there wa s a fe dera l courthouse f or the Ea stern 28 District of Ne w York loc ated in Uniondale , Nassau County

.3 1 On J u l y

2 , 1 9 9 9 , Ya k i nal l ege s s h e w as i n j ure d wh i l e a tT yl er

Hi l l C am p af

t er h i t t i n g a 2 dock while waterskiing . Acc ordingto her c omplaint, Yakin suffe red “ sever e and pe rmane nt 3 persona l injuries” as a result of the a ccide nt. I n May 2007, Yakin sued Ty

ler Hill in Nassau 4 County

Supreme Court, alleg ing that her injuries re sulted from the “ car elessness a nd neg lige nce” 5 of Tyler Hill, its employ ees a nd others. B y

that time, the fede ral c ourthouse in Uniondale ha d 6 closed a

nd the cour

t was re -located out of Na ssau County to Central I slip in S uffolk County . The 7 main courthouse f or the Ea stern District of N ew Yor k rema ined in Br ookly

n, New Y ork. 8 Nonethele ss, Tyler Hill remove d the ac tion to the United States District Court for the Easte rn 9 Di str ic t of

Ne w Y or k o n th e ba sis of

div e rs ity jur isd ic tio n. I f s uc c e ssf

ull y re mov e d, the c a se 10 would have be en litigated in fede ral c ourt in Suffolk County

. 11 Ya

kin mov e d to re mand

the a c tio n to Na ssa

u Co un ty State Supreme Court on the g round 12 that the forum se lection clause mandated ve nue and tr ial in Nassau County . In November 2007, 13 afte r first re

jectingYakin’s pe tition for rea sons unrelate d to this appeal, the district cour t gr anted 14 Yakin’s r equest. Y akin v. Tyler H

ill C amp, Inc

. , 2007 U.S. Dist. L EXI S 82848, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. 15 Nov. 6, 2007). Concludingthat on a motion to remand, the r emoving defe ndant bea rs the burde n 16 of

de mon str a tin g the pr op ri e ty of re mov a l, t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

fo un d th a t T yle r H ill ha d n ot m e t th is 17 burd e n b e c a

us e the langua g e of

the fo rum se le c tio n c la

us e wa s ambi g uo us a s to wh e the r i t 18 require d an ac tion to be broug ht in feder al or state c ourt, and, c onsequently , should be interpre ted 19 ag ainst the party

that draf ted it. Id. at 3-5. Construing the clause in favor of the non-dra fter 20 Yakin, the district cour t remande d the ac tion and this appeal followe d.4 1 DI SCU SSIO N 2 3 On

a pp e a l, T yle r H ill argue s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d f or tw o r e a so ns . F ir st, Ty

le r H ill 4 contends that the f orum selec tion clause is not ambig uous. Acc ording to Tyler Hill’s 5 interpre tation, the clause mere ly desig nated Na ssau County , New Y ork as a g eog raphic location 6 for litigation and, there fore , did not ex clude ve nue in a f eder al district court with jurisdiction 7 ov e r N a ssa

u Co un ty . T yle r H ill argue s, c on se qu e ntl y , th a t th e re fe re nc e in t he c la us e to v e nu e in 8 Nassau County

does not exclude trial in the Easter n District of Ne w York, which includes 9 Nassau County , espec ially since at the time Yakin submitted the enrollment application, there 10 wa s a

fe de ra l c ourt

ho us e in N a ssa

u Co un ty . Se c on d, arguin g in t he a lte rn a tiv e , T yle r H ill 11 c on te nd s th a t e ve n if the fo rum se le c tio n c la

us e c ou ld b e he ld t o b e ambi g uo us , th e c la us e wo uld 12 not bar Tyler Hill from a fede ral for

um beca use an a mbiguous c lause is not a cle ar a nd 13 unequivoca l waiver of fe dera l jurisdiction that is binding on the pa rties. 14 We review de novo a district cour t’s leg al conc lusion reg ardingrema nd. Se e Bloc k

bu ste r, 15 Inc. v. Galeno , 472 F.3d 53, 56 ( 2d Cir. 2006). Gene rally , a dec ision to remand an a ction to a 16 state cour

t from which it was r emoved is not revie wable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). Howe ver, w e 17 pe rm it r e vie w whe re the re mand re su lts fr om a

n inte rp re ta

tio n o f a fo rum se le c tio n c la

us e 18 be c a

us e the ratio na le be hin d Se c tio n 1 44 7( d) ’s no nr e vie wa bil ity ru le –th e pr e ve nti on

of de lay –“ is 19 no t a

pp lic a ble wh e n a

dis tr ic t c ourt

wi th s ub je c t- matte r j ur isd ic tio n r e mand s a c a se on the ba sis 20 of its interpretation of a for um-selec tion clause.” Kar l Ko c h E re c tin g Co . v . Ne w York 21 Convention Ctr. Dev. Corp. , 838 F.2d 656, 658 ( 2d Cir. 1988). Her e, we are revie wing a leg al 22 conclusion since the meaningof a f orum selec tion clause is a matter of contra ct interpre tation, 23 see id. , and “[t]he init ial interpre tation of a c ontrac t is a matter of la w for the court to dec ide,”5 1 Parks Real Estate Purc hasing Group v. St. Paul Fire &Marine Ins. Co. , 472 F.3d 33, 42 ( 2d Cir. 2 2006) (inter

nal quotation marks omitted). 3 We first consider whether the forum se lection clause is ambiguous, a threshold question 4 of law. A n ambig uity exis ts where a contr act ter m “could sug g est more than one meaningwhen 5 viewed obje ctively by a re asonably

intelligent pe rson who has e x amined the c ontext of the e ntire 6 integ rate d ag ree ment and who is cognizant of the customs, practice s, usag es and te rminology as 7 g ener ally

understood in the par

ticular tra de or business.” Morgan Stanley Group I nc. v. Ne w 8 England Ins. Co. , 225 F.3d 270, 275 ( 2d Cir. 2000) (interna l quotation marks omitted). A forum 9 selec tion clause is to be interpr eted in ac corda nce w ith acce pted principles of contra ct 10 construction. See Karl K och Erec ting Co., 838 F.2d at 658 (explaining that a district c ourt’s 11 de c isi on

to r e mand

a c a se on the ba sis of

its int e rp re tatio n o f a

fo rum- se le c tio n c la

us e is a 12 “ de te rm inatio n o f t he va lid ity

and me anin g of

a c on tr a c t” ). Part ie s a

re fr e e to b ind

the mse lve s to 13 forum sele ction clause s that trump what would otherw ise be a rig ht to remove c ases to fe dera l 14 courts. See id. a t 65 9- 60 ; Phillips v. Audio ActiveLtd. , 494 F.3d 378, 386 ( 2d Cir. 2007) 15 (“[C] ontrac ting pa rties may . . . ag ree in advanc e on a f orum wher e any

and all of the ir disputes 16 must be broug ht . . . .”). 17 We perc eive no a mbiguity in the forum sele ction clause . A re asonable person r eviewing 18 the statement “ I t is ag ree d that the venue and plac e of tria l of any dispute that may

arise out of 19 this Agr eeme nt . . . shall be in Nassau County , New Y ork,” w ould nece ssarily conclude that the 20 pa

rt ie s in te nd e d th a t li tig a tio n ta ke pla c e in a

n a pp ro pr iate ve nu e in N a ssa u Co un ty and that th is 2 1 c o m m i t m e n tw a s n o tc o n d i t i o n e d o nth e e x i s t e n c e o f

a f e d e r a l c o urth o u s e i nth a tc o un ty.We e xpre ss n o v ie w a s to wh e the r a fo rum se le c tio n c la

us e mus t st ipu late a

sp e c if ic 1 no n- fe de ra l juri sd ic tio n in or de r t o r e qu ir e re mand

fo r j ur isd ic tio na l pu

rp os e s, a s o pp os e d to ve nu e purp os e s. 6 1 Tyler Hill contends that nothingin the wordingof the c lause re quires that a dispute be 2 litigated in Na ssau County Supreme Court and, a s a re sult, the clause doe s not on its face e x clude 3 fe de ra l juri sd ic tio n. Th is m ay be tr ue , but it mis se s th e po int . A c c or din g to t he Sup re me Court , 1 4 fo rum se le c tio n c la us e s “ are pr ima

fa c ie va lid

and sh ou ld b e e nf

or c e d unle ss e nf

or c e me nt i s 5 shown by

the re sisting par

ty to be ‘unre asonable ’ under the circ umstances.” M/S Breme n v. 6 Zapata Off-Shore Co. , 4 07 U. S. 1 , 1 0 ( 19 72 ). A f or um s e le c tio n c la

us e may bin d p art ie s to 7 either a

specific jurisdiction or, as her e, a spe cific ve nue. See Phillips , 494 F.3d at 386 (“A 8 forum sele ction clause is viewed a s mandatory when it conf

ers e x clusive jurisdiction on the 9 desig nated f

orum or incor

porate s obligatory

venue la ng uag e.”) . To the extent that a forum 10 selec tion clause binds diverse parties by its ex press ter

ms to a specific jurisdiction that is not 11 fede ral, it waive s a statutory rig ht to remove. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Howe ver, where , as 12 he re , th e c la

us e me re ly

c on ta ins ob lig a tor

y ve nu e langua g e , it

c on ve y s n oth inga

bo ut t he pa rt ie s’ 13 intent as to jurisdiction. As the Supreme Court has stated, w e ar e oblig ed to g ive ef fec t to the 14 parties’ intentions reg ardingvenue “ by specific ally

enfor cingthe forum c lause” absent a strong 15 showing that it should be set aside. M/S Breme n , 407 U.S. at 12. 16 Gi ve n th a t th e fo rum se le c tio n c la us e c on ta ins on ly

ob lig a tor y ve nu e langua g e , w e wi ll 17 e ff

e c tuate the pa

rt ie s’ c omm itm e nt t o tr ia l in Na ssa u Co un ty . H a d th e re be e n a fe de ra l c ourt

in 1 8 N a s s a

uC o u n ty a tth e t i m e o f

th i s l i t i g a t i o n , r e m an d

w o u l d b e i mp r o p e r . B u tth e r e w a s n o n e . In 19 addition, contrar

y to Ty ler Hill’s conte ntion, no reasona ble re adingof the c lause pe rmits the7 1 int e rp re tatio n th a t th e pa rt ie s h a d a g re e d to tr ia l in Suf fo lk C ounty

or B ro ok ly n b e c a us e tho se 2 courthouses w ere within the Eastern D istrict of NewYork, whic h spans an a rea including N assau 3 County . Had the pa rties intended to provide for that r esult, they could, of c ourse, have dra fted a 4 differ ent forum se lection clause that communicated that intent. W e ar e fr ee only to interpret a

nd 5 enfor ce the clause as written. 6 7 CO NC LU SION 8 The de cision of the district cour t is AFF I RMED. 9