U.S. Smoke & Fire Curtain, LLC v. Bradley Lomas Electrolok, Ltd
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00268-AJT-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999588695].. [14-1558]
Appeal: 14-1558
Doc: 28
Filed: 05/22/2015
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1558
U.S. SMOKE & FIRE CURTAIN, LLC,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRADLEY LOMAS ELECTROLOK, LTD,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Anthony John Trenga,
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00268-AJT-JFA)
Submitted:
February 27, 2015
Decided:
May 22, 2015
Before KING, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terrance G. Reed, LANKFORD & REED, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia,
for Appellant.
Tara M. Lee, Joseph C. Davis, DLA PIPER LLP
(US), Reston, Virginia; Sara Z. Moghadam, Paul D. Schmitt, DLA
PIPER LLP (US), Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-1558
Doc: 28
Filed: 05/22/2015
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
In this appeal, U.S. Smoke & Fire Curtain, LLC (“Curtain”),
challenges the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of
its civil complaint.
in
concluding
Curtain asserts the district court erred
that
the
forum-selection
clause
in
the
distribution agreement into which Curtain entered with Bradley
Lomas Electrolok, Limited (“BLE”), applies to the claims raised
in Curtain’s complaint. 1
We affirm. 2
Curtain raises three arguments on appeal.
First, Curtain
claims that, by removing the case to federal district court, BLE
waived
its
clause.
right
to
We disagree.
seek
enforcement
of
the
forum-selection
See, e.g., PT United Can Co. v. Crown
Cork & Seal Co., 138 F.3d 65, 72 (2d Cir. 1998); see also Davis
v. St. Paul-Mercury Indem. Co., 294 F.2d 641, 647 n.7 (4th Cir.
1961) (noting that motion for change of venue following removal
from
state
court
provides
defendants
with
useful
tool
to
1
Because the district court dismissed the action, we
conclude that its order is final and appealable.
See Chao v.
Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir. 2005).
2
Although the parties disagree on the appropriate standard
of review following the Supreme Court’s decision in Atlantic
Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court, 134 S. Ct. 568
(2013), we decline to decide the issue because, under either
standard, the district court’s order must be affirmed.
2
Appeal: 14-1558
Doc: 28
Filed: 05/22/2015
Pg: 3 of 4
alleviate extreme hardship).
Second,
Curtain
claims
that
the
termination
of
its
distribution agreement with BLE bars BLE’s enforcement of the
forum-selection clause.
Although several of the district court
decisions to which Curtain points may be read to support this
position, we conclude that the greater weight of authority is
against Curtain.
as
Generally, dispute-resolution provisions, such
forum-selection
clauses,
are
enforceable
beyond
the
expiration of the contract if they are otherwise applicable to
the disputed issue and the parties have not agreed otherwise.
See Litton Fin. Printing Div. v. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190, 204 (1991);
Cumberland Typographical Union No. 244 v. Times & Alleganian
Co., 943 F.2d 401, 405 (4th Cir. 1991).
Under these principles,
we conclude that the termination of the agreement provides no
basis for disturbing the district court’s order.
Finally, Curtain claims that the district court erred by
concluding that the forum-selection clause applies to the claims
raised
in
its
complaint.
We
conclude,
however,
that
the
district court correctly determined that all of Curtain’s claims
arise in connection with the distribution agreement and, thus,
fall
within
clause.
the
ambit
of
the
broadly
worded
forum-selection
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
Appeal: 14-1558
Doc: 28
Filed: 05/22/2015
Pg: 4 of 4
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions
are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?