Wong v. PartyGaming Ltd.
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 27914, 2009 WL 4893955, 589 F.3d 821 (2009)
Rule of Law:
In a federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction, federal law governs the enforceability of a forum selection clause, and such clauses are presumptively valid and should be enforced unless the party challenging the clause can make a strong showing that it was obtained by fraud, the designated forum would be ineffective or unfair, or enforcement would be gravely inconvenient or unjust.
Facts:
- PartyGaming Ltd. is a Gibraltar-based company that operates an online poker business.
- Rose Wong and Patrick Gibson registered on PartyGaming’s website to participate in online poker games.
- As part of the registration process, Wong and Gibson agreed to PartyGaming's "Terms and Conditions of Use," which included a policy stating that customers are prohibited from holding more than one account and that PartyGaming uses a "Collusion Prevention System."
- The Terms and Conditions also contained a forum selection clause specifying that all disputes would be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Gibraltar and that the agreement would be governed by the laws of Gibraltar.
- The Terms and Conditions included a prominent warning to read and print the terms carefully before accepting the agreement.
- Wong and Gibson alleged that PartyGaming falsely represented that collusion and multi-account players did not occur on its website, that it did not encourage gambling by minors or addicts, and that these representations breached the agreement and violated Ohio consumer protection laws.
Procedural Posture:
- Rose Wong and Patrick Gibson filed a diversity suit against PartyGaming Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
- The suit alleged breach of contract, misrepresentation, and violation of Ohio consumer protection laws, seeking class action certification.
- The district court provisionally certified a class of all similarly situated individuals in Ohio who paid a registration fee on PartyGaming’s website.
- PartyGaming failed to respond to plaintiffs’ first amended complaint, and default was entered against it in January 2008.
- PartyGaming subsequently moved to set aside default and filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ third amended complaint for improper venue under FRCP 12(b)(3) due to the Gibraltar forum selection clause, and for failure to state a claim under FRCP 12(b)(6).
- The district court found the Gibraltar forum selection clause valid, denied PartyGaming’s motions as moot, and dismissed the action sua sponte for forum non conveniens.
- Plaintiffs filed a timely appeal to the Sixth Circuit, seeking a reversal of the district court’s dismissal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does federal law govern the enforceability of a forum selection clause in a diversity case, and if so, did the district court abuse its discretion in dismissing the suit for forum non conveniens based on a valid forum selection clause designating a foreign forum?
Opinions:
Majority - McKeague, Circuit Judge
Yes, federal law governs the enforceability of a forum selection clause in a diversity case, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the suit for forum non conveniens based on the valid Gibraltar forum selection clause. The Sixth Circuit first determined that federal law, rather than state law, governs the enforceability of a forum selection clause in diversity cases, aligning with the majority of other circuits and emphasizing the strong federal interest in procedural matters and consistency across federal courts. While recognizing a potential divergence with Ohio state law regarding consumers, the court found the federal policy favoring enforcement controlling. Applying federal law, the court reiterated that forum selection clauses are presumptively valid and enforceable unless the party opposing them makes a strong showing of invalidity, focusing on three factors: (1) whether the clause was obtained by fraud in its inclusion, duress, or unconscionable means; (2) whether the designated forum would ineffectively or unfairly handle the suit; and (3) whether the designated forum would be so inconvenient as to be unjust or unreasonable. The plaintiffs' claims of fraud were dismissed because they alleged general fraud about the website's operations, not fraud specifically in the inclusion of the forum selection clause itself. The court found that Gibraltar would not be an ineffective or unfair forum, noting that the unavailability of jury trials (common in non-U.S. forums) or class-action suits does not render a forum inadequate if a remedy is still available. Finally, the court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to meet the heavy burden of showing that litigating in Gibraltar would be so unjust or unreasonable as to invalidate the clause, despite potential inconvenience to consumers. Having affirmed the clause's enforceability, the court then reviewed the district court's sua sponte dismissal for forum non conveniens, finding no abuse of discretion. It determined Gibraltar was an adequate alternative forum, noting that PartyGaming, as a Gibraltar corporation, consented to jurisdiction there, and less favorable law does not make a forum inadequate. The court also found that both public factors (e.g., Gibraltar's interest in a case affecting its economy, the choice-of-law clause indicating Gibraltar law) and private factors (e.g., location of evidence/witnesses, strong weight of the forum selection clause itself) weighed in favor of a Gibraltar forum. Finally, the court held that less deference is given to a plaintiff's choice of home forum when a valid forum selection clause exists.
Concurring - Merritt, Circuit Judge
I concur in the decision to affirm the dismissal, but my primary consideration is that the gambling contract entered into between the parties is likely illegal in Ohio and under federal law, while being legal in Gibraltar. Judge Merritt reasoned that if Ohio law were to control the contract, both the plaintiffs and PartyGaming could face criminal charges, as Ohio law prohibits facilitating games of chance for profit and federal law (like the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006) outlaws certain internet gambling. He suggested that, analogous to the rule of lenity (interpreting ambiguous criminal laws in favor of defendants), the forum selection clause should be interpreted as controlled by English law (which governs Gibraltar), thereby keeping the contract from being void and avoiding potential criminal penalties for the parties. He acknowledged that neither party raised this specific issue, but emphasized that courts sometimes need to address such 'embarrassing questions' to ensure a just outcome.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant for federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction, as it definitively establishes that federal common law, rather than state law, governs the enforceability of forum selection clauses. It reinforces the strong judicial policy favoring the enforcement of such clauses, placing a substantial burden on the party seeking to invalidate them. Furthermore, the ruling clarifies that perceived disadvantages of a foreign forum, such as the absence of jury trials or class action mechanisms, are generally insufficient to overcome a valid forum selection clause, provided some remedy remains available. This decision also underscores that less deference is afforded to a plaintiff's chosen forum when it contradicts a freely negotiated or agreed-upon forum selection clause, shaping how courts balance contractual agreements with a plaintiff's right to choose their forum.
