Source: https://freerangelaw.net/2019/02/06/visiting-mexico-and-civil-procedure-part-3-of-4/
Timestamp: 2020-07-14 12:34:38
Document Index: 642334410

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 3', 'art 3', 'art 2', 'art 4', 'art 3', 'arts 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4']

Visiting Mexico, and Civil Procedure: part 3 of 4 – Free Range Law
Visiting Mexico, and Civil Procedure: part 3 of 4
Previous post: Visiting Mexico, and Civil Procedure: part 2 of 4
Next post: Visiting Mexico, and Civil Procedure: part 4 of 4
Posted February 6, 2019 by Rachel Puryear
Welcome to part 3 of this series! To recap, parts 1 and 2 discussed the difference between specific personal jurisdiction and general personal jurisdiction, where the parties to a lawsuit are from different states. Part 2 also showed photos from traveling in Manzanillo, Mexico.
In Part 3; for the travel part of this post, I will show some photos from Mazatlan, Mexico. Then, in the legal part of this post, I will discuss the role that venue plays in determining where a lawsuit will take place, when the parties come from different states. “Venue” simply means where a lawsuit will be heard by a judge (litigated).
For the travel part:
Our third stop in our Mexico trip was Mazatlan, where we hiked the hill to the top of the El Faro Lighthouse, and took in some amazing views at the top:
Views from the El Faro Lighthouse in Mazatlan
Now, turning to the legal part of this post, and the first half of a discussion about venue. (The question of venue comes up in addition to jurisdiction, the requirements of which must also be satisfied.)
When different parties to a lawsuit live far apart, each party will naturally prefer to have the lawsuit heard in a court close to their home, rather than in a distant court. This is for reasons including convenience, avoiding travel costs, and the home team advantage (which is a big deal in law as well as in sports).
This is where the question of venue comes up.
Ever read a Terms of Service Agreement (or similar)? If so, you may have noticed that it includes a provision about venue, in the event of a legal dispute between you and that company. Chances are, the company who wrote the TOS chose a venue which is a lot more convenient for them than it is for you. They want to make you promise to agree to their preferred venue in case a lawsuit happens. This is known as a “forum selection clause”.
(1) “I Agree box”, and (2) “I Have No Idea What This Says” box with a cursor over it
A forum selection clause may or may not actually be enforceable, and courts can go both ways on deciding the outcome of a venue dispute. The individual facts of a case are also important to the outcome. But even if a forum selection clause is arguable, it would still require expensive litigation to fight it – before the merits of an underlying case have even been looked at. Therefore, anyone signing an agreement with a forum selection clause, should be prepared to likely be bound by it.
So, the forum selection clause can be one way to determine venue.
There are also a few other ways for a court to have proper venue, if there is no previous agreement: Venue is proper for a court if (1) The court is in a state in which all defendants reside (if they all reside in the same state); or (2) The court is in a state where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the lawsuit took place; or if all else fails, (3) The court is in a state where any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction, if there is no other jurisdiction where venue would be proper.
I will further illustrate #2 of the above paragraph in the upcoming part 4 of this series. Stay tuned!