Opinion ID: 2823845
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jurisdiction and Contractual Forum Selection Clauses

Text: Â¶11Â Â Â Â Â âA courtâs jurisdiction concerns its power to entertain and to render a judgment on a particular claim.â In re Estate of Ongaro, 998 P.2d 1097, 1103 (Colo. 2000). In Colorado, the subject matter jurisdiction of state courts is determined solely by the state constitution or by statute. See Colo. Const. art. 5, Â§ 9; see also Currier v. Sutherland, 218P.3d 709, 712 (Colo. 2009) (âA trial courtâs unrestricted and sweeping jurisdictional powers are only limited by a statute or constitutional provision . . . .â (internal quotation marks omitted)). Personal jurisdiction involves the courtâs authority to subject a particular defendant to the decisions of the court. Due process prohibits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant unless the defendant has âcertain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.â Intâl Shoe Co. v.Â Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (internal quotation marks omitted). Â¶12Â Â Â Â Â A forum selection clause is a contractual provision agreed to by private parties that constitutes the partiesâ agreement as to where they will bring any litigation related to the contract. Cagle v. Mathers Family Trust, 2013 CO 7, Â¶12. In reviewing forum selection clauses, Colorado follows the rule established in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws in 1971 and adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in M/S Bremen v.Â Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972). Under that rule, a forum selection clause is presumptively enforceable unless it is unreasonable, fraudulently induced, or against public policy. See Cagle, Â¶18 (adopting the Bremen rule). Â¶13Â Â Â Â Â Although forum selection clauses may be enforceable generally, the partiesâ agreement as to the place of the action does not divest a court of personal or subject matter jurisdiction. Colorado courts have long adhered to the common law principle that âthe lawful jurisdiction of courts cannot be ousted by the private agreements of individuals.â In re Brownâs Estate, 65 Colo. 341, 345â46, 176 P. 477, 479 (1918); see also Isham v. People, 82 Colo. 550, 567â68, 262 P. 89, 96 (1927) (âJurisdiction of thesubject-matter is conferred by the Constitution and laws of the state, not by the action of one or both parties.â), superseded on other grounds by statute, as recognized in GilfordÂ v. People, 2 P.3d 120, 128â29 (Colo. 2000). Section 80 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws also reflects this principle: The partiesâ agreement as to the place of the action cannot oust a state of judicial jurisdiction, but such an agreement will be given effect unless it is unfair or unreasonable. The commentary to that provision emphasizes that â[p]rivate individuals have no power to alter the rules of judicial jurisdiction. They may not by their contract oust a state of any jurisdiction it would otherwise possess.â Rest. (2d) Conflict of Laws Â§ 80 cmt. a (1971). Â¶14Â Â Â Â Â The U.S. Supreme Court underscored this point in Bremen, explaining that the ousting a court of jurisdiction argument âis hardly more than a vestigial legal fiction.â 407 U.S. at 12. Instead, â[t]he threshold question is whether that court should have exercised its jurisdiction to do more than give effect to the legitimate expectations of the parties, manifested in their freely negotiated agreement, by specifically enforcing the forum clause.â Id. Every Colorado court of appeals case considering this issue has agreed that, while forum selection clauses are usually enforceable as a matter of contract, they do not deprive a court of its jurisdiction. See, e.g., Edge Telecom, Inc. v.Â Sterling Bank, 143 P.3d 1155, 1159â60 (Colo. App. 2006); ABC Mobile Sys., Inc. v.Â Harvey, 701 P.2d 137, 139 (Colo. App. 1985). Â¶15Â Â Â Â Â We stand with the great weight of authority in concluding that forum selection clauses do not limit the jurisdictional authority of a court. This rule is consistent with our recent decision in Cagle where we upheld a trial court order dismissing a claim for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to a forum selection clause. See Â¶4. However, Cagle addressed only the enforceability of the clause. It did not discuss the impact on the courtâs jurisdiction over the claim or parties. Cagle simply held that the forum selection clauses at issue were enforceable because they did not violate public policy as expressed in Coloradoâs securities laws. Id.