Opinion ID: 2751406
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Choice-of-Venue Provision

Text: The defendants first argue that the district court erred by denying their motion to dismiss based on improper venue because the parties contractually agreed to litigate the dispute in a South Carolina state court. Under general contract principles, the plain meaning of a contract’s language governs its interpretation. Belize Telecom, Ltd. v. Belize, 528 F.3d 1298, 1307 & n.11 (11th Cir. 2008). “The court must look at the contract as a whole, the parties, 5 Case: 14-11405 Date Filed: 11/14/2014 Page: 6 of 10 and the purpose of the agreement to best determine the intent of the parties in interpreting the agreement.” Slater v. Energy Servs. Grp. Int’l, Inc., 634 F.3d 1326, 1330 (11th Cir. 2011). This court and others often characterize forumselection clauses as either “permissive” or “mandatory.” Id. “A permissive clause authorizes jurisdiction in a designated forum but does not prohibit litigation elsewhere,” whereas “[a] mandatory clause . . . ‘dictates an exclusive forum for litigation under the contract.’” Id. (quoting Snapper, Inc. v. Redan, 171 F.3d 1249, 1262 n.24 (11th Cir. 1999)). The forum selection clause at issue here, found in the July 2004 note, reads as follows: “CHOICE OF VENUE. If there is a lawsuit, Borrower agrees upon Lender’s request to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of Charleston County, State of South Carolina.” The guaranties executed by Gentry and Venesky contained virtually identical clauses to that in the Note. Based on the plain meaning of the language at issue, the forum selection clause is permissive, as opposed to mandatory, because the terms of the agreement allow the Lender to make an election. Slater, 634 F.3d at 1330. Thus, the clause permits suit—upon PNC’s election—in Charleston County and requires that the defendants submit to suit there, but it does so without precluding litigation in any other forum. See id. In this case, PNC opted to file suit in another forum, and nothing in the contract language prohibits such a choice. To give the language a different effect 6 Case: 14-11405 Date Filed: 11/14/2014 Page: 7 of 10 would “unjustifiably diminish[]” its importance. Snapper, Inc., 171 F.3d at 1262 (discussing a forum selection clause that, by its terms, gave a creditor a choice of fora). Accordingly, the district court properly denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on improper venue.