Court Opinion

ID: 9897072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:06:40.027361+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:20.213363
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                  STATE OF FLORIDA
                  _____________________________

                       Case No. 5D22-2341
                   LT Case No. 2022-CA-020853
                  _____________________________

PROPERTY REGISTRATION
CHAMPIONS, LLC,

    Appellant,

    v.

DAVID MULBERRY,

    Appellee.
                  _____________________________

Nonfinal appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County.
David Dugan, Judge.

Nicole K. Atkinson and Amy S. L. Terwilleger, of Gunster,
Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellant.

Victor Lee Chapman, of Barrett, Chapman & Ruta, P.A.,
Orlando, for Appellee.

                        November 13, 2023

SOUD, J.

     Property Registration Champions, LLC appeals the trial
court’s denial of its motion to dismiss, arguing that dismissal was
required because the forum selection clause in the employment
agreement between the parties required David Mulberry to file his
action in Delaware. We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla.
Const.; Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(A). We reverse. The forum
selection clause is mandatory and unambiguous and required
Mulberry’s action to be filed in Delaware.

                                 I.

     Mulberry and PRC entered into an employment agreement by
which Mulberry was employed as President and Chief Operating
Officer of PRC. The employment agreement contained a forum
selection clause:

       Consent to Jurisdiction. All judicial proceedings
       brought against any party arising out of or relating
       to this Agreement, or any obligations or liabilities
       hereunder, shall be brought in the United States
       District Court for the District of Delaware, provided
       that if such proceeding shall not satisfy applicable
       federal jurisdiction requirements, the dispute shall
       be brought in the state courts of the State of
       Delaware. By executing this Agreement, each party
       irrevocably      (a)    accepts      generally    and
       unconditionally the exclusive jurisdiction and
       venue of such courts; (b) waives, to the fullest
       extent permitted by applicable law any objection
       which they may now or hereafter have to the laying
       of venue of any such dispute brought in such court
       or any defense of inconvenient forum for the
       maintenance of such dispute; . . . Notwithstanding
       the foregoing, [PRC] may seek injunctive or
       equitable relief to enforce the terms of this
       Agreement in any court of competent jurisdiction.

(emphases, other than to title, added).

     Ultimately, PRC terminated Mulberry’s employment. As a
result, Mulberry filed a three-count complaint in the Eighteenth
Judicial Circuit Court of Florida seeking (i) a declaratory judgment
finding the forum selection clause null and void because of forum
non conveniens, as well as damages for (ii) unpaid compensation,
and (iii) breach of contract.

                                 2
     PRC moved to dismiss the case based on the forum selection
clause. Based upon its conclusion that the forum selection clause
was permissive, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss and
allowed the case to proceed in Florida. This appeal followed.

                                 II.

     PRC argues the trial court erred in denying its motion to
dismiss because the forum selection clause is mandatory and its
plain language specifies Delaware as the exclusive venue for
Mulberry’s case. Mulberry argues that the clause, being
ambiguous and inconsistent, is permissive, allowing his suit to
proceed in Florida.

                                 A.

                                 1.

     As a question of law, we review de novo the trial court’s
interpretation of the forum selection clause, as we do the
interpretation of any contractual provision. Ware Else, Inc. v.
Ofstein, 856 So. 2d 1079, 1081 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). 1 We also
review de novo the initial determination of whether a contract
term is ambiguous, which, too, is a question of law. Escobar v.
United Auto. Ins., 898 So. 2d 952, 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Florida
law governs our determination of the validity and enforceability of
the forum selection clause. See Kerr Constr., Inc. v. Peters
Contracting, Inc., 767 So. 2d 610, 612 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

                                 2.

    While a plaintiff generally may choose the venue in which to
bring his suit, and his choice will not be disturbed when it is one
provided for by Florida Statutes, 2 parties to a contract, of course,
may in their contract agree on a venue for actions related to the

    1 Similarly, the trial court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss is

reviewed de novo. See W. Bay Plaza Condo. Ass’n v. Sika Corp.,
338 So. 3d 32, 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022).
    2 See § 47.011, Fla. Stat. (2021).

                                 3
contract. See Honea v. Walker Chem. & Exterminating Co., 393 So.
2d 1210, 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (citing Producers Supply, Inc.
v. Harz, 6 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1942), and Felkel v. Abernethy, 150 So.
631 (Fla. 1933)). Therefore, Florida law has long presumed forum
selection clauses are valid and enforceable. See Am. Safety Cas.
Ins. v. Mijares Holding Co., 76 So. 3d 1089, 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA
2011). Forum selection clauses “provide a degree of certainty to
business contracts by obviating jurisdictional struggles and by
allowing parties to tailor the dispute resolution mechanism to their
particular situation.” Id. (quoting Manrique v. Fabbri, 493 So. 2d
437, 439 (Fla. 1986)). “Forum selection clauses reduce litigation
over venue, thereby conserving judicial resources, reducing
business expenses, and lowering consumer prices.” Id.

    There are two types of forum selection clauses: mandatory and
permissive. See Travel Exp. Inv. Inc. v. AT & T Corp., 14 So. 3d
1224, 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); see also Venus Concept USA, Inc.
v. Angelic Body, LLC, 362 So. 3d 258, 262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023).
Mandatory forum selection clauses require that suit be filed in the
particular forum identified. See Travel Exp. Inv. Inc., 14 So. 3d at
1226. A permissive forum selection clause only provides that there
may be jurisdiction over such litigation in a particular forum. See
Shoppes Ltd. P’ship v. Conn, 829 So. 2d 356, 357–58 (Fla. 5th DCA
2002); see also Antoniazzi v. Wardak, 259 So. 3d 206, 209 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2018).

     Generally, whether a forum selection clause is mandatory or
permissive is determined by whether the language of the provision
indicates “exclusivity.” Sonus-USA, Inc. v. Thomas W. Lyons, Inc.,
966 So. 2d 992, 993 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (citing Golden Palm Hosp.,
Inc. v. Stearns Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 874 So. 2d 1231, 1236 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2004)). Where a forum selection clause lacks words of
exclusivity, it is considered permissive, and it is “nothing more
than a consent to jurisdiction and venue in the named forum and
do[es] not exclude jurisdiction or venue in any other forum.” Id.
However, if the plain language of the forum selection clause
“state[s] or clearly indicate[s] that any litigation must or shall be
initiated in a specified forum,” then it is mandatory. Id.; see also
W. Bay Plaza Condo. Ass’n v. Sika Corp., 338 So. 3d 32, 34 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2022); Antoniazzi, 259 So. 3d at 209; Venus Concept USA,

                                 4
Inc., 362 So. 3d at 262 (“[T]he use of the word ‘shall’ denotes a
mandatory forum selection clause.”).

     Of course, there are no “magic words” that in and of
themselves dictate an outcome. Yet, as is the case with any legal
instrument—whether it be a constitution, statute, ordinance,
regulation, contract, or will 3—the text is supreme. See Ham v.
Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 308 So. 3d 942, 946 (Fla. 2020).
Where the language of a contract is plain and unambiguous, it
controls—full stop.

     Importantly, when interpreting legal texts, including
contractual provisions, Florida courts do not engage in a merely
robotic exercise; nor do we strain for a strict (or lenient)
interpretation. “A text should not be construed strictly, and it
should not be construed leniently; it should be construed
reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means.” Antonin Scalia, A
Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law 23 (new ed.)
(emphasis added). Thus, the proper work of the court is to arrive
at a “fair reading” of the contract; that is to say, “determining the
application of a governing text to given facts on the basis of how a
reasonable reader, fully competent in the language, would have
understood the text at the time it was issued.” See Antonin Scalia
& Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal
Texts 33 (2012) (emphasis added).

     As this Court has said, when “a venue selection clause
unambiguously mandates that litigation be subject to an agreed
upon venue, then it is reversible error for the trial court to ignore
the clause.” Travel Exp. Inv. Inc., 14 So. 3d at 1226. “As a general
principle, a trial court must honor a mandatory forum selection
clause in a contract in the absence of a showing that the clause is
unreasonable or unjust.” 4 Id. (emphasis added)

    3 See Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The

Interpretation of Legal Texts 51 (2012).
    4 To clear this high legal hurdle, the party seeking avoidance

must demonstrate much more than “mere inconvenience or
additional expense”; rather he must establish that “trial in the
contractual forum will be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that

                                 5
     The plain language of the forum selection clause sub judice
unambiguously indicates exclusivity. The clause makes clear that
“all” suits arising out of or relating to the employment agreement 5
“shall be brought” in Delaware. In their agreement, both Mulberry
and PRC agreed and “irrevocably . . . accept[ed] . . . unconditionally
the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of” Delaware. Further, the
parties “waive[d] . . . any defense of inconvenient forum.”
Therefore, based on this clear and unambiguous language, we
conclude the forum selection cause is, by its express terms,
mandatory. As a result, Mulberry was required to bring his suit in
Delaware.

                                 B.

      Amongst other arguments supporting his claim that the
forum selection clause is permissive, all of which are rejected,
Mulberry places great emphasis on the title of the forum selection
clause, “Consent to Jurisdiction.” He claims this wording is a
“hallmark” of permissive forum selection clauses, and that this
title creates an ambiguity in the substance of the provision, thus
rendering it permissive. Mulberry’s argument fails.

                                  1.

   The title “Consent to Jurisdiction” does not create any
ambiguity. As our colleague Judge Jay has cogently noted:

he will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court.
Absent that, there is no basis for concluding that it would be
unfair, unjust, or unreasonable to hold that party to his bargain.”
Manrique, 493 So. 2d at 440 n.4 (quoting M/S Bremen v. Zapata
Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 18 (1972)). Mulberry presents no such
argument in this case. Rather, his arguments rest entirely on his
position that the forum selection agreement is permissive rather
than mandatory.
    5 The underlying suit clearly arises out of and relates to the

employment agreement. Mulberry makes no suggestion to the
contrary—and rightly so.

                                  6
       [A] reader of the law all too often sees its heading
       as just so much signage along the statutory road
       map. But the title of a statute is of no small stature
       and should not be given short shrift. . . . [A]
       statutory title “is a permissible indicator of the
       meaning of [the] text.” U.S. v. Heon Seok Lee, 937
       F.3d 797, 812 (7th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted). A
       heading is “especially valuable” where “it reinforces
       what the text’s nouns and verbs independently
       suggest ....” Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. 528,
       552, 135 S.Ct. 1074, 191 L.Ed.2d 64 (2015) (Alito
       concurring).

Fla. Fish & Wildlife Conser. Comm’n v. Hahr, 326 So. 3d 1165,
1170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (Jay, J., specially concurring). This same
principle applies when reading the legally binding language of the
contract before us.

     With this in mind, rather than creating an ambiguity, the title
“Consent to Jurisdiction” is consistent with the substance of the
forum selection clause. This title simply identifies the paragraph
addressing the parties’ agreement as to the required forum for
resolving disputes arising out of the contract. The substance of the
paragraph itself sets forth the precise and detailed agreement
between PRC and Mulberry related thereto.

     The language of the title is “especially valuable” because it
reinforces what the text[ ] . . . independently suggests.” See id.
Consent simply means, “agreement, approval or permission
regarding some act . . .; legally effective assent.” Consent, BLACK’S
LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019). As discussed supra, in the
employment agreement, the parties expressly gave their “legally
effective assent” that “all” litigation arising out of the employment
agreement “shall be brought” in Delaware. They further “agree[d]”
and “irrevocably” accepted “generally and unconditionally the
exclusive jurisdiction and venue” of Delaware. Simply put, each
consented to jurisdiction and venue only in Delaware. That
“consent”—that “agreement” as Black’s defines consent—is
properly set forth in both the title and substance of the forum
selection clause.

                                 7
                                 2.

     Mulberry further suggests that the title, when read together
with the final sentence, renders the clause permissive because the
final sentence modifies the entire provision. This argument is
unavailing.

     The final sentence reads: “Notwithstanding the foregoing,
[PRC] may seek injunctive or equitable relief to enforce the terms
of this Agreement in any court of competent jurisdiction.” Rather
than modifying the entire provision, this final sentence simply
carves out an exception to the contract’s requirement that
Delaware alone is the forum for litigation of disputes arising out of
the contract. This exception allows PRC, in courts outside of
Delaware, to pursue enforcement of the contract in an action
seeking injunctive or equitable relief.

     This interpretation is made clear by the word
“Notwithstanding,” which is a preposition meaning “Despite; in
spite of.” Notwithstanding, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed.
2019). Thus, the contract makes plain that despite the provision’s
requirement that Delaware alone is the forum for litigation of
disputes arising out of the contract, PRC retained the right to
proceed in any court of competent jurisdiction when seeking
enforcement of the contract only though injunctive or equitable
relief. 6 As such, contrary to Mulberry’s argument, this final
sentence does not modify the entire clause.

                                 3.

    Even if there were an inconsistency between the title of the
clause and the terms thereof, “‘text wins’ in ‘a war between text

    6 Though the contract reserves this right to PRC alone and not

Mulberry, this does not render this provision invalid. See
Antoniazzi, 259 So. 3d at 210 (“A contract will be considered valid
even when its obligations are not mutual as long as there is
consideration for the contract as a whole. This general proposition
of law applies in the instant context, and we hold that the non-
mutuality of the forum selection clause does not render it invalid
or permissive.”) (citation omitted).

                                 8
and title[.]’” Hahr, 326 So. 3d at 1170 (Jay, J., specially concurring)
(quoting Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 951 F.3d 286, 293
(5th Cir. 2020) (citing Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal
Texts 222-23)); see also Hinely v. Fla. Motorcycle Training, Inc., 70
So. 3d 620, 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“[T]he headings or
subheadings of a document do not dictate the meaning of the entire
agreement, especially where the literal language of the heading is
contrary to the agreement’s overall scheme.”); Certain
Underwriters at Lloyds of London v. Pero Fam. Farm Food Co., No.
20-12711, 2023 WL 2855844 at *6 (11th Cir. Apr. 10, 2023)
(quoting Hinely, 70 So. 3d at 624). To allow the title “Consent to
Jurisdiction” to render the forum selection clause permissive
would require us to overlook the plain and unambiguous language
of exclusivity set forth in the provision. This, we will not do.

                                 III.

    Since the mandatory forum selection clause unambiguously
mandates that Mulberry’s suit be brought in Delaware, the trial
court erred in denying PRC’s motion to dismiss. Accordingly, we
REVERSE AND REMAND with instructions that the trial court
dismiss this case.

    It is so ordered.

MACIVER and PRATT, JJ., concur.

                  _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

                                  9