In Holt Texas, Ltd. v. Vita Inclinata Techs., Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled on a motion to dismiss based on a forum selection clause in a dispute between a franchisor and its distributor. The decision offers guidance on the enforceability of forum selection clauses in these situations.

Holt entered into a distribution agreement with Vita, a franchisor, allowing Holt to distribute Vita’s manufactured crane parts in Texas. Following multiple disagreements, Vita chose to terminate the contract, initiate legal proceedings, and seek declaratory relief regarding its rights and obligations under the agreement.

The legal battle unfolded concurrently in two states—Colorado and Texas. Vita initially filed its action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. Holt moved to dismiss the action for improper venue. It alleged the appropriate venue was state court in Denver County, Colorado, per the agreement’s “Choice of Forum” clause which read: “the parties chose the state courts in the County of Denver [Colorado] as the proper forum.”

In the alternative, Holt argued Texas was an appropriate forum for the litigation because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Holt’s claim, i.e., Vita’s termination of the contract, occurred in Texas. Texas has a general venue provision found in Section 15.002 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code which Holt argued applied.

Before the U.S. District Court in Colorado could rule on Holt’s motion, Vita voluntarily dismissed its action and refiled it in Denver County, Colorado, state court. Meanwhile, Holt filed its own action in Texas state court, prompting Vita to remove that case to Texas federal court. Both parties invoked the agreement’s forum selection clause and the doctrine of forum non conveniens to seek dismissal of the opposing action.

Despite both parties recognizing the validity of the clause, Holt contested its enforceability, presenting two main arguments:

1. Excused performance: Holt argued its performance under the contract was excused because Vita materially breached the contract by filing an action in Colorado federalcourt.
2. Erie doctrine: Holt asserted that since subject-matter in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas was based on diversity jurisdiction, the Court had to apply Texas substantive law under the Erie doctrine. Holt argued that by applying Texas law, the forum selection clause was void under Section 57.051 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, which voids any provision in a dealer agreement that applies non-Texas state law.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas rejected Holt’s arguments. It reiterated that when a valid forum selection clause points to a different forum, the clause must be given controlling weight unless strong public-interest arguments against its enforcement exist. The Court found Holt failed to present any public-interest arguments but nonetheless proceeded to analyze and dismiss all of Holt’s contentions against enforceability of the clause.

The Court rejected Holt’s excused performance claim. The Court further held that federal law governed the analysis of a forum selection clause’s enforceability, rendering Texas law irrelevant to a court’s analysis of the issue. The Court granted Vita’s motion to dismiss, holding that when parties contract for a state court forum, application of forum non conveniens, and thus dismissal, are the proper remedies. This ruling highlights the significance of valid forum selection clauses in franchise agreements and emphasizes their enforceability, barring strong public-interest arguments against their application.