FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 8, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 13 79 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 9- 00 20 8- CV-SC B-EAJ MINDY SLATER, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us ENERGY SERVICES GROUP INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED, a.k .a. ESG Int ern at io na l, In c., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee, PROGRESS ENERGY SERVICE COMPANY, LLC., A subs id ia ry

of P ro gr es s En erg y , Inc ., et al ., Defen da nt s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 8, 2 01 1) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, MARTIN an d HILL, Ci rcu itJu dg es .DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e:

App el la ntMi nd y

Sla te r ap pe al s fr om

th e d is m is sa l o f he r cl ai m s b ro ug ht pu rs ua ntto Tit le VII of

th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 , 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e , et seq . (Tit le VII), th e Fl or id a Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 92 , Fla . Sta t. § 76 0.0 1, et seq . (FCRA), an d t he Flo rid a Whis tl eb lo wer Act , Fla . Sta t. § 44 8.1 02 (FWA), agai ns t Ene rg y Serv ic es Group In te rn at io na l (ESGI) , herform er em pl oyer. Slat er cl ai m s th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby dis m is si ng he r cl ai m s fo r im pr op er v enue ba se d o n a fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e fo un d i n h er em pl oym en t ag reem en t. Sh e co nt en ds th e cl au se is no t m an da to ry , do es no t ap pl y to he r cl ai m s, o r, al te rn at iv el y , sh ou ldno t be en fo rcedforpubl ic po li cy reas on s. Sh e al so co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erre d i n d is m is si ng he r cl ai m s p ur su an t t o F ed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 12 (b )(3 ) rat he r th anan al y zi ng ESGI’s ven ue ob jecti on s u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 14 04 (a), the fed eral tra ns fer- of -v enue st atut e. Afte r a car efu l re vi ew of th e rec or d
an d h av in g t he be ne fitof o ral arg um en t, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t o f di sm is sa l. I. On Ma y 14 , 20 06 , Sla te r si gn edanem pl oym en t ag reem en t wi th ESGI, whi chsetth e te rm s an d c on di ti on s o f he r em pl oym en t. The ag reem en t s ta te d t ha t Sl at er was anat- wil l em

pl oyee an d i nc lu de d t he fol lo win g fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e:

2“ The pa rti es ag ree tha t al l cl ai m s o r cau se s o f act io n re la ti ng to or a ris in g fr om th is Agr eem en t s ha ll be bro ug htina co urt i n t he Cit y of R ic hm on d, Vi rg in ia .” The ag reem en t al so in cl ud eda ch oi ce o f la w pro vi si on de si gn at in g Vi rg in ialaw as
co nt ro ll in g a ndst at edth atth e ag reem en t “ co ns ti tu te s t he so le an d e nt ire ag reem en t” be twee n S la te r an d ESGI. Sh ortl y aft er h iri ng Sla te r, in Ju ly 200 6, ESGI s ta ffedSla te r atPro gr es s Ene rg y Serv ic e Co m

pa ny’ s n uc le ar p la ntfaci li ty in Cry st al Riv er, Fl or id a, whe re sh e worke d a s a r ecep ti on is t an d l at er as a he al th care tec hn ic ia n. Atall rel ev an t ti m es , ESGI, Prog res s En erg y , andFlo rid a Po wer Co rp or at io n jo in tl y em pl oyed Sl at er. In l at e Ja nu ary 20 07 , sev eral m on th s af te r be gi nn in g h er p os it io n a t the 1 Pro gr es s En erg y

pl an t, Sl at er i nf

orm edhe r im

m ed ia te supe rv is orth atsh e was pr eg na nt . Arou ndth is ti m e, th e Hum anRes ou rce M an ag er i nf orm edSla te r of pe rfo rm an ce co nc ernan d s pe ci fic al ly not edth e am ou ntof t im e Sl at er h adtak en of f work. In Feb ru ary 20 07 , Sla te r was term in at edforpe rfo rm an ce co nc ern s af te r he r supe rv is oraccu se d S la te r of m ak in g a n e rro r in a ph y si cal ex am in at io n o f a
cran e o pe rat or .

Progress Energy and Florida Power are also Def endants in the unde rlying suit, but are not 1 involved in this appeal. 3On Fe brua ry 9, 2 00 9, Sl at er fi le d h er co m pl ai ntag ai ns t ESGI an d t he ot he r Defen da nt s i n t he Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a, al le gi ng vi ol at io ns of Ti tl e VII, th e FCRA, an d t he FWA. Spec ifi cal ly, Sl at er al le ge d t ha t the Defen da nt s u nl awfu ll y te rm in at edhe r em

pl oym en t af

te r sh e an no un cedth atsh e was pre gn an t. Sh e al so al le ge d t ha t s he was fi redinret al ia ti on forob jecti ng to th e Defen da nt ’s un la wfu l
co nduc t. Sla te r at ta ch edhe r Not ic e o f Ri gh t t o S ue let te r fro m th e Equ al 2 Em pl oym en t Op po rtu ni ty Com m is si on (EEOC) to th e co m pl ai nt . The EEOC
no ti ce, d at edJanua ry

6, 2 00 9, i nd ic at edth atSla te r ha d n in ety da y s fr om

th atda te to su e b as edon he r Tit le VII cl ai m . On M arch 12 , 20 09 , ESGI fil eda m ot io n t o d is m is s fo r im pr op er v enue un de r Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 2( b) (3 ) ba se d o n the forum -s el ect io n cl au se co nt ai ne d i n t he em pl oym en t ag reem en t. ESGI as ke d, al te rn at iv el y , th atth e di st ric t co urt tran sf

er the cas e to th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ctof Vi rg in ia , Ric hm on d Di vi si on , th e o nl y fed eral ve nu e p erm it te d b y th e em pl oym en t co nt ract . On March 30 , 20 09 , th e rem ai ni ng two Defen da nt s an swe redth e co m

pl ai ntan d c on ced edth e p ro pr ie ty of ve nu e in th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of Flo rid a. On Ap ril 15 , 20 09 , th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d ESGI’s Ru le 12 (b )(3 )
Th e u n l awf

ul conduct involved Slater’s alleg ation that one or more of the Def endants 2 awa rded an employee a passing score on an eye examination that Slater claims she administered and witnessed the e mploy ee c heating
. 4m ot io n a nddi sm is se d the cla im s ag ai ns t ESGI wi th ou t p reju di ce. The co urt

reas on edth atbe cau se th e Defen da nt s wh o wer e n otparti es to th e ag reem en t co nt ai ni ng th e fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e h adalr eady an swe redth e co m

pl ai ntan d adm it te d p ro pe r ve nu e, itwas n otin cl in edto tra ns fer t he cas e as a who le . The di st ric t co urt g ran te d S la te r’s Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e Ru le 54 (b ) m ot io n to ap pe al
. II . Thi s co urt re vi ews a di st ric t co urt’s co ns tru ct io n o f a co ntractua l fo rum se le ct io n c laus e de no vo . Glo ba l S at el li te Co mmc’n Co . v. Starmil l U.K. Ltd., 37 8 F.3 d 1 26 9, 1 27 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) . W e g en eral ly revi ew th e d is m is sa l o f a l aws ui t fo r im pr op er v enue un de r anab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ard
. Home I ns . Co. v. Th oma s In du s., In c., 89 6 F .2d13 52 , 13 55 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). Howev er, wh ere ve nu e is est ab li sh edby con tra ctina fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e, we rev ie w th e en fo rceabl it it y

of t ha t v enue sel ect io n, l ik e an y ot he r co nt ractpro vi si on , ona de
no vo ba si s. Ruc ker

v. Oas is Legal

Fin an ce, LLC
. , __

_ F .3d

__ _, 2 01 1 WL 47 65 19 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1)
. II I. Sl at er ch al le ng es th ree a sp ect s o f th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l. Fi rs t, s he arg ue s t ha t the di stric t co urt erredinfin di ng th atth e sc op e o f th e fo ru m -s el ect io n 5cl au se in cl ud es he r cl ai m s ag ai ns t h er em pl oyers fo r em

pl oym en t d is cri m in at io n. Seco nd , Sla te r arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredinen fo rci ng th e fo ru m -s el ect io n cl au se inth e fac e o f adve rs e p ol ic y in te res ts . Fin al ly, Sl at er ar gu es th atth e d is tri ct co urt erredindi sm is si ng he r cas e p ur su an t t o R ul e 1 2( b) (3 ) an d s ho ul d h av e in st eadap pl ie d t he tra ns fer a na lysis un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 40 4( a). A. Scop e o f the Fo rum-Sele cti on Cla us e Sl at er fi rs t co nt en ds th athe r Tit le VII an d F lo rid a st atut ory cla im s d o n otfit withi n t he sco pe of t he em pl oym en t ag reem en t’s fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e. Sh e pr es en ts a nu m

be r of on ly sli gh tl y

va rie d arg um en ts insupp ort o f he r co nt en ti on , bu t p rin ci pa ll y

arg ue s t ha t the forum -s el ect io n c laus e sh ou ldbe readto en co m pa ss on ly breac h- of

-co nt ractcla im s d ire ct ly relat in g t o t he em pl oym en t ag reem en t. Bec au se he r cl ai m s ar e st atut or il y ba se d, s he arg ue s t he for um -s el ect io n c laus e do es no t ap pl y . Und er g en eral co nt ractpri nc ip le s, the pl ai n m ean in g o f a co nt ract ’s la ng ua ge go ve rn s i ts in te rp ret at io n. Beli ze Tel eco m, Ltd. v. Beli

ze , 52 8 F .3d12 98 , 13 07 & n .11 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). The co urt m us t l oo k a t the co nt ractas awho le , th e pa rti es , andth e p ur

po se of t he ag reem en t t o b es t d et erm in e th e in te ntof the pa rti es in in te rp ret in g t he ag reem en t. Pen nz oi l Co . v. F.E. R.C. , 64 5 F .2d36 0, 3 88 (5t h

6Ci r. 19 81 ). If no ot he r co nt ractpri nc ip le s p oi ntto a pa rti cu la r m ean in g, the co urt 3 wil l p refe r th e rea so nabl e in te rp ret at io n tha t o pe rat es m or e st ro ng ly agai ns t the pa rty who d raft edth e d oc um en t. Glo ba l S at el li te , 37 8 F .3dat 1 27 1 (c it in g Ci tr o Fla ., Inc . v. Citro va le, S.A. , 76 0 F .2d12 31 , 12 32 (11 thCir . 19 85 )). Thi s co urt an d o th ers oft ench arac te riz e fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus es as e it he r

“pe rm is si ve ” o r “ m an da to ry .” Id
. at12 72 . “ A perm is si ve claus e au th or iz es juri sd ic ti on ina de si gn at edforum bu t d oe s n otpro hi bi t l it ig at io n e ls ewh ere,” whe reas “ [a] m an da to ry

claus e . . . ‘ di ct at es anex cl us iv e fo ru m forli ti ga ti on un de r th e co nt ract .’ ” Id . (qu ot in g Sn ap pe r, In c. v. Red

an , 17 1 F .3d12 49 , 12 62 n.2 4 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) ). The forum -s el ect io n c laus e st at es th at“ al l cl ai m s o r cau se s o f act io n rel at in g t o o r ari si ng fro m th is Agre em en t s ha ll be bro ug htina co urt i n t he Cit y of Ri ch m on d, Vi rg in ia .” Bas edon a pl ai n re ad in g o f th e cl au se , we con cl ud e th atth e fo ru m de si gn at io n i n t he claus e is no t p erm is si ve , bu t m an da to ry . As we h av e reco gn iz ed , th e u se of t he term “ sh al l” is on e o f requi rem en t. Id . at 1 27 2 (“ The
co nt ractpro vi si on . . . be cau se itus es th e im pe rat iv e ‘sha ll ,’ is m os t re as on ab ly in te rp ret edto m an da te ve nu e . . . .”). Thus , we ho ldth atth e cl ai m s wi th in th e

In Bonner v. City ofPrichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981), this court adopted as 3 binding pr ece dent all dec isions of the former Fifth Circuit hande d down prior to Oc tober 1, 1981. 7sc op e o f th e fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e m us t b e b ro ug htina co urt i n R ic hm on d, Virg in ia , andno t i n t he Dis tri ctCo urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a. W e al so co nc lu de th atSla te r’s cl ai m s fa ll squa rel y withi n t he sco pe of t he fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e. The c laus e is fou ndinSla te r’s co nt ractforem pl oym en t, whi chgo ve rn s t he en ti rety of t he em

pl oym en t re la ti on sh ip be twee n S la te r an d ESGI. The cl au se is expr es sl y ap pl ic ab le to “ al l cl ai m s o r cau se s o f act io n re la ti ng to or a ris in g fr om

[th e em pl oym en t ag reem en t].” Thi s i nc lu de s al l cl ai m s ar is in g

“ di rect ly or in di rect ly” from th e rel at io ns hi p e vi de nc edby the co nt ract . Se e St ewa rt Org ., Inc . v. Rico h Co rp . , 81 0 F .2d10 66 , 10 70 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ), aff’d, 48 7 U.S. 2 2, 1 08 S. Ct. 2 23 9 (1 98 8) . Slat er cl ai m s t ha t ESGI v io la te d i ts em pl oym en t o bl ig at io ns by dis cri m in at in g a ndret al ia ti ng ag ai ns t h er. The refo re, we co nc lu de th atSla te r’s Tit le VII, FCRA, an d F WA cla im s ar e wit hi n t he sco pe of th e fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e. B. Enfo rcea bi li ty of t he Fo rum-Sele cti on Cla us e Sl at er n ex t ar gu es th atth e fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e sh ou ldno t b e ap pl ie d t o he r cl ai m s b ro ug htpu rs ua ntto Tit le VII, FCRA, an d F WA forpubl ic po li cy reas on s. Onap pe al , Sla te r of fers th ree p ol ic y

arg um en ts ag ai ns t en fo rcem en t o f th e fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e: th e p ol ic y ag ai ns t d ep riv in g p la in ti ffs of t he ir d ay in

8co urt, the po li cy ag ai ns t the m ai nt en an ce o f pa ral le l p ro ceed in gs , andth e p ol ic y ag ai ns t en fo rci ng for

um -s el ect io n c laus es inciv il rig ht s ac ti on s. Man da to ry

for um -s el ect io n c laus es are “pr es um pt iv el y va li d a nd
en fo rceabl e” ab se nta “ stro ng sh owi ng th aten fo rcem en t wo ul d b e unf ai r or un reas on ab le un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces .” Kr en kel v. Ker zn er Int ’l Ho te ls Ltd
. , 57 9 F.3 d 1 27 9, 1 28 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)
.

“ A forum -s el ect io n c laus e wil l b e in va li da te d wh en : (1 ) it s fo rm at io n was in du ced by fraudor o ve rrea ch in g; (2) th e p la in ti ff wo ul d b e d ep riv edof i ts da y inco urt be cau se of i nc on ve ni en ce o r un fai rn es s; (3) th e ch os enlaw wo ul d d ep riv e th e pl ai nt iff of arem edy ; o r (4 ) en fo rcem en t o f th e cl au se wou ldco nt rav en e p ub li c po li cy .” Id
. Sl at er ra is edon ly two p ol ic y arg um en ts inth e d is tri ctco urt: th at en fo rcem en t o f th e fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e d ep riv es he r of he r da y inco urt an d vi ol at es th is co urt’s p ol ic y ag ai ns t the m ai nt en an ce o f pa ral le l p ro ceed in gs . Slat er arg ue s t ha t en fo rcem en t o f th e fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e in th is cas e eff ect iv el y de ni es he r anop po rtu ni ty to p res en t h er cl ai m be cau se he r ni ne ty-day peri odfor fil in g h er Tit le VII cl ai m

ha s ex pi red . There fo re, s he arg ue s, i t i s d oubt fu l tha t s he wil l b e ab le to refi le he r Tit le VII cl ai m ag ai ns t ESGI i n t he East ernDis tri ctof Virg in ia . Slat er al so arg ue s t ha t the co urt s ho ul d d ecl in e to en fo rce the forum 9se le ct io n c laus e b ecau se itwil l re su ltinpa ral le l p ro ceed in gs —o ne inth e Eas te rn

Dis tri ctof Vi rg in iaag ai ns t ESGI an d o ne inth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a ag ai ns t Pro gr es s En erg y

an d F lo rid a Po wer. Sla te r arg ue s t ha t m ai nt ai ni ng two pr oc eed in gs is ex pe ns iv e, a drai n o n ju di ci al res ou rces , andm ay res ul t i n in co ns is te ntres ul ts or p reju di ce t o h er cl ai m s i f th e Defen da nt s ea chtry to ca st li ab il it y onanab se ntparty. Sl at er’s o rig in al po li cy

arg um en ts are n otsu ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh th e “ st ro ng sh owi ng ” o f un en fo rceabi li ty requ ire d t o o ve rco m e th e p res um pt io n t ha t a f

orum se le ct io n c laus e is va li d a nden fo rceabl e. Fir st , Sla te r of fers li tt le m or e th an sp ecu la ti on th atsh e m ay

be un ab le to refi le he r cl ai m s ag ai ns t ESGI i n t he East ern Dis tri ctof Vi rg in ia ; s uc h s pe cu la ti on fal ls sh ort o f m eet in g h er b ur de n o f sh owi ng un en fo reab il it y . Furt he r, we co nc lu de th atm an y of t he da ng ers ass oc ia te d wi th
m ai nt ai ni ng pa ral le l p ro ceed in gs are n otim pl ic at edhe re. Sl at er h as all eg edth at ESGI em pl oyed h er as a st affi ng em pl oyee an d a s p artof i ts bu si ne ss op erat io ns as si gn edhe r to workat P ro gr es s En erg y ’s pl an t fa ci li ty as a rece pt io ni st/h eal th care tec hn ic ia n fo r th e o th er Defe nd an ts . The ev id en ti ary de ta il s re ga rd in g t he em

pl oym en t re la ti on sh ip be twee n S la te r an d ESGI a nd be twee n S la te r an d t he ot he r Defen da nt s wi ll no t co ns id erab ly ove rlap. Be cau se ESGI em pl oyed Sl at er i n adi ffer en t m anne r an d m ad e it s t erm in at io n d eci si on 10ba se d o n t he rep orts fro m th e o th er Defe nd an ts , th e fac tu al is su es su rro un di ng Sl at er’s em

pl oym en t thr ou gh ESGI wil l v ary fro m th e fac tu al qu es ti on s re ga rd in g Sl at er’s em

pl oym en t wi th th e o th er Defe nd an ts . Thu s, s ep arat in g t he cla im s ag ai ns t ESGI wh il e Sl at er’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t the rem ai ni ng two Defen dant s ar e ha nd le d t og ethe r do es no t i m pl ic at e an y

da ng er ty

pi cal ly ass oc ia te d wi th th e m ai nt en an ce o f pa ral le l p ro ceed in gs . Fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal , Sla te r pr es en ts a th irdpo li cy arg um en t ag ai ns t en fo rcem en t o f th e fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e: for um -s el ect io n c laus es are un en fo rceabl e as a m at te r of law i n c iv il -ri gh ts act io ns . App el la te co urts ge ne ral ly wil l n otco ns id er a l eg al is su e th atwas n otpre se nt edto th e tr ia l co urt. Dean W it te r Rey no ld

s, In c. v. Fern an de

z , 74 1 F .2d35 5, 3 60 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ). W e h av e reco gn iz edsev eral ex cep ti on s t o t hi s ru le , in cl ud in g wh ere ( 1) th e is su e in vo lv es a pu re i ss ue of l aw an d re fu sa l t o c on si de r itwou ldres ul t i n am is carr ia ge of ju st ic e; (2 ) th e ap pe ll an t d idno t h av e th e o pp ortu ni ty to ra is e th e is su e to th e d is tri ctco urt; (3 ) subs ta nt ia l ju st ic e is at s ta ke ; (4 ) th e p ro pe r res ol ut io n i s b ey on d a ny do ub t; an d (5 ) th e is su e p res en ts si gn ifi can t que st io ns of g reatpubl ic co nc ern . Id . at 36 0– 61 . Becau se we are p ers ua de d t ha t the ex cep ti on s ar e n otap pl ic ab le to Sl at er’s arg um en t, we d ecl in e to co ns id er i t fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal
. C. Dismis sa l Purs ua nt to Rule 12 (b)( 3) 11Fi na ll y , Sla te r co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y

di sm is si ng he r cl ai m s fo r im pr op er v enue pu rs ua ntto Ru le 12 (b )(3 ) rat he r th an ap pl y in g t he trans fer a na lysis un de r 28 U.S.C. 14 04 (a). Sla te r cl ai m s t ha t b ecau se 4 § 1 40 4( a) i s t he on ly pro pe r pr oc edur al m ech an is m foren fo rci ng a fo rum -s el ect io n cl au se whi chde si gn at es ve nu e in an ot he r Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt, the di st ric t co urt erredby app lying Ru le 12 (b )(3 ) in st eadof § 14 04 (a). Oursi st er ci rcu it s d is ag ree r eg ard in g t he ap pr op ria te ve hi cl e fo r en fo rci ng fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus es . Lip co n v . Und erwr it er s a t Ll oy d’

s, Lo ndon , 14 8 F .3d 12 85 , 12 89 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (rec og ni zi ng cir cu itsp li t); se e e.g . , Ker ob o v . Sw. Cl ea n Fu el

s, Co rp ., 28 5 F .3d53 1, 5 39 (6t h C ir. 2 00 2) (ho ld in g t ha t the pro pe r an al y si s i s u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 14 04 (a)) ; Rich ar ds v. Llo yd ’s of Lo ndon , 13 5 F .3d 12 89 , 12 92 (9t h C ir. 1 99 8) (ap pl y in g R ul e 1 2( b) (3 ) to anin te rn at io na l fo ru m se le ct io n c laus e); La mbe rt v. Kys ar , 98 3 F .2d11 10 , 11 12 n.1 (1s t Ci r. 19 93 ) (ap pl y in g R

ul e 1 2( b) (6 )); AVC Ned

er la nd B.V. v. Atr iu m Inv . P’sh ip , 74 0 F .2d 14 8, 1 53 & n .8 (2 d C ir. 1 98 4) (ap pl y in g R ul e 1 2( b) (1 ) to anin te rn at io na l fo ru m se le ct io n c laus e).

Section 1404(a) provides: “F or the convenie nce of parties and witnesses, in the interest of 4 justice, a district c ourt may transfe r any civil a ction to a ny other district or division whe re it mig ht have be en brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ( 1996). 12Thi s co urt h as he ld , inth e co nt ex t o f a fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e whi ch

m an da te d afor ei gn ve nu e, th ata m ot io n p ur su an t t o R ul e 1 2( b) (3 ) is th e p ro pe r av enue forrel ie f. Li

pc on , 14 8 F .3dat 1 28 9. In Lip co n , th is co urt d eci de d t ha t

“ m ot io ns to di sm is s b as edup on forum -s el ect io n c laus es ord in ari ly are no t pr op erl y bro ug htpu rs ua ntto Ru le 12 (b )(1 ) . . . becaus e th e b as is up on whi chth e de fen da nt s s eekdi sm is sa l—na m el y , th atth e ag reem en t o f th e p art ie s p ro hi bi t the pl ai nt iff fro m bri ng in g s ui t i n t he pa rti cu lar fo ru m —i s u nr el at edto th e actua l b as is of fed eral subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on . . . .” Id . Ins te ad , we con cl ud edth ata m ot io n p ur su an t t o R

ul e 1 2( b) (3 ) is th e p ro pe r ve hi cl e to reque stdi sm is sa l o f a
co m pl ai nton th e b as is of aco ntractua l ch oi ce o f fo ru m . Id . at 1 29 0. We furt he r supp orte d o urho ld in g wi th th e Supr em e Co urt’s h ol di ng in St ewa rt Org ., Inc . v. Rico h C or p. , 48 7 U.S. 2 2, 2 5– 32 , 10 8 S . Ct. 2 23 9– 45 (19 88 ), th at28 U.S.C. § 14 04 (a) c on tro ls th e reque stof apa rty to g iv e eff ectto a co nt ractua l fo ru m se le ct io n c laus e b y

tra ns ferr in g t he act io n. Sp eci fic al ly, th e co urt n ot ed : “ th e [ Rico h ] Co urt’s co nc lu si on th atth e fed eral tra ns fer- of
- ven ue st atut e g ov ern s di st ric t co urt d eci si on s i n e nf or ci ng forum -s el ect io n c laus es pro vi de s s up po rt f or ou r vi ew th atm ot io ns to di sm is s b as edup on forum -s el ect io n c laus es are co gn iz ab le as m ot io ns to di sm is s fo r im pr op er v enue .” Li

pc on , 14 8 F .3dat 1 29 0 (em ph as is inori gi na l). 13Sl at er at te m pt s t o d is ti ng ui sh Li

pc on an d c on te nd s t ha t Ru le 12 (b )(3 ) di sm is sa l i s av ai labl e as anen fo rcem en t m ech an is m on ly in ca se s wh ere t he fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e atis su e d es ig na te s v enue ina fo rei gn co un try; othe rwis e, sh e co nt en ds th e p arty

see ki ng en fo rcem en t o f a d om es ti c fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e m us t re qu es t a t ran sf

er t o t he pro pe r ve nu e p ur su an t t o § 14 04 (a). We di sa gr ee th at Li pc on sh ou ldbe readso na rro wly. Und erl y in g o ur read in g o f St ewa rt

an d
ou r ho ld in g i n Li

pc on is th e v ie w th atco urts m us t h an dl e at te m

pt s t o e nf or ce co nt ractua l fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus es as c ha ll en ge s t o v enue . In St ewa rt , th e is su e on ap pe al co nc ern edon ly the de ni al of the reque stto tra ns fer v enue , whi le in Li pc on th e d efen dantso ug htrel ie f th ro ug h d is mis sa l. Acco rd in gl y , we con cl ud e th at§ 1 40 4( a) i s t he pro pe r av enue of r el ie f whe re a p arty see ks th e tr an sf

er o f a
cas e to en fo rce aforum -s el ect io n c laus e, whi le Ru le 12 (b )(3 ) is th e p ro pe r av enue fo r a p arty ’s reque stfor

di sm is sa l b as edon a fo ru m -s el ect io n c laus e. Thu s, the di st ric t co urt d idno t err in an al y zi ng ESGI’s m ot io n u nd er Ru le 12 (b )(3 ) an d di sm is si ng Sla te r’s cl ai m s fo r im pr op er v enue . IV. Fo r th e afo rem en ti on edreas on s, we h ol d t ha t the di stric t co urt d idno t err in di sm is si ng Sla te r’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t ESGI fo r im pr op er v enue ba se d o n t he forum 14se le ct io n c laus e co nt ai ne d i n h er em pl oym en t ag reem en t. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t o f di sm is sa l. AFFIRMED.

15