Atlas Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. Tri-North Builders, Inc.
Filing
35
Judge George A. OToole, Jr: OPINION AND ORDER entered. Tri-North's request to declare the parties' forum selection clause valid and to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim(dkt.no.26) is GRANTED. The case is dismissed without prejudice.Motions terminated: 26 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Tri-North Builders, Inc..(Lyness, Paul) Modified on 3/20/2020 (Lyness, Paul).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-10930-GAO
ATLAS GLASS & MIRROR, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRI-NORTH BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
March 20, 2020
O’TOOLE, S.D.J.
This suit arises from the alleged failure of Tri-North Builders, Inc. to fully compensate
Atlas Glass & Mirror, Inc. for window installation services Atlas Glass performed as part of a hotel
restoration project for which Tri-North acted as general contractor. Tri-North moved to dismiss
the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure1 on the basis of a forum
selection clause in the parties’ governing agreement. The Court denied without prejudice the
motion and permitted a short period of discovery on the issue. Following discovery, Tri-North
renewed the motion.
In 2012, Atlas Glass entered into a subcontract with Tri-North, identified as Subcontract
No. 121210024667, to provide window installation services at a hotel in Framingham,
According to the First Circuit, “the use of Rule 12(b)(6) to evaluate forum selection clauses is
still permissible in this Circuit, and we will not decline to review or enforce a valid forum selection
clause simply because a defendant brought a motion under 12(b)(6) as opposed to under § 1404
or forum non conveniens.” Claudio-De Leon v. Sistema Universitario Ana G. Mendez, 775 F.3d
41, 46 n.3 (1st Cir. 2014).
1
Massachusetts (the “Subcontract”). The Subcontract, dated August 28, 2012, contained the
following provision:
19. Disputes: Any dispute arising from this Contract shall, at Contractor’s2 option,
be resolved by litigation, binding arbitration . . . , or the dispute resolution clause
of the Prime Contract. . . . Forum and venue for any arbitration or litigation shall
be Dane County, Wisconsin, and Subcontractor consents to the jurisdiction of the
courts of Wisconsin.
(Mem. of Law in Support of Tri-North’s Mot. to Declare the Parties’ Forum Selection Clause Valid
and to Dismiss this Case for Failure to State a Claim Aff. of Michael R. Stanley (“Stanley Aff.”)
Ex. A ¶ 19 (dkt. no. 26-2).) The Subcontract also contained a merger clause providing that the
Subcontract “represents the full and final agreement of the parties and supersedes all prior written
and oral communication between the parties.” (Id. ¶ 22.) It further provided that Tri-State could
“make changes in,” including “additions to” the “Work” described in the Subcontract. (Id. ¶ 4.)
Atlas Glass performed the work identified in the Subcontract, as well as extra work
requested by Tri-North. It submitted invoices to Tri-North in accordance with the Subcontract,
repeatedly describing that the terms were “Per Contract” and identifying “Subcontract:
121210024667” on the invoices and “Subcontract date 08/28/12” on its sworn pay applications.
(Stanley Aff. Exs. B, C (dkt. no. 26-3, 26-4).) Although Tri-North paid Atlas Glass for some of
the work it performed, Atlas Glass contends a balance of $88,154.13 remains.
“[T]he threshold question in interpreting a forum selection clause is whether the clause at
issue is permissive or mandatory.” Rivera v. Centro Medico de Turabo, Inc., 575 F.3d 10, 17 (1st
Cir. 2009). There is no dispute that the forum selection clause here is mandatory. The clause states
that at the Contractor’s election “Forum and venue for any arbitration or litigation shall be Dane
2
The Subcontract identified Tri-State as the “Contractor” and Atlas Glass as the “Subcontractor.”
2
County, Wisconsin.” (Stanley Aff. Ex. A ¶ 19 (emphasis added).) “[I]t is axiomatic that the word
‘shall’ has a mandatory connotation.” Claudio-De Leon, 775 F.3d at 46.
“The next step in evaluating the applicability of a forum selection clause is ascertaining its
scope.” Id. at 47. “[T]he language of the forum selection clause . . . determines which claims fall
within its scope.” Id. at 47 (quoting Rivera, 575 F.3d at 19). Here, the clause provides that the
forum and venue for “any . . . litigation shall be Dane County, Wisconsin,” within a larger
paragraph dictating how “[a]ny dispute arising from” the Subcontract shall be resolved. (Stanley
Aff. Ex. A ¶ 19 (emphasis added).) The gravamen of the complaint is that Tri-North breached the
Subcontract when it failed to pay the invoices Atlas Glass submitted “in accordance with the
specifications contained in the Subcontract” for “services [that] were performed in accordance
with the Subcontract.” (Compl. ¶¶ 37–38 (dkt. no. 1-1).) The claims fall within the broad scope of
the forum selection clause.
Atlas argues that the forum selection clause in the Subcontract does not apply to its claims
because an earlier proposal it submitted to Tri-North was accepted and Atlas Glass performed the
work set out therein. However, the Subcontract was executed after Atlas Glass sent its proposal
and, as noted, it included a merger clause which provided that the Subcontract “represents the full
and final agreement of the parties and supersedes all prior written and oral communication between
the parties.” (Stanley Aff. Ex. A ¶ 22.) Therefore, the proposal did not represent the agreement of
the parties; it was explicitly and unambiguously superseded by the Subcontract. The Subcontract
contemplated the possibility of additional work, (see id. ¶ 4), and, in any event, Atlas Glass’s
course of conduct, including its submission of invoices and sworn statements referring to the
Subcontract, demonstrated a mutually agreed upon modification to the original amount of work
identified in the contract.
3
If the clause is mandatory and encompasses the claims alleged, the final step is to evaluate
whether there is a reason that the presumption of enforceability should not apply. Claudio-De
Leon, 775 F.3d at 48–49. The party challenging a forum selection clause must make a “strong
showing” that the clause is “‘unreasonable’ under the circumstances” and should be set aside. Id.
(quoting M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10, 15 (1972)); Carter’s of New
Bedford, Inc. v. Nike, Inc., 790 F.3d 289, 292 (1st Cir. 2015). Under Bremen, there are four
grounds for finding a clause unenforceable as unreasonable: (1) it is the “product of ‘fraud or
overreaching’”; (2) “enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust”; (3) litigation in the selected
forum would “be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that [the party challenging the clause] will
for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court;” and (4) “enforcement would contravene
a strong public policy of the forum in which suit is brought, whether declared by statute or judicial
decision.”3 Claudio-De Leon, 775 F.3d at 48–49 (quoting Bremen, 407 U.S. at 15, 18).
Atlas Glass appears to make three arguments under Bremen, including that enforcement of
the forum selection clause in the Subcontract (i) would be unreasonable and unjust because of a
lack of reciprocity of rights or mutuality of obligations, (ii) would be against public policy because
of its statutory claim under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, and (iii) would cause
manifest injustice to Atlas Glass because of the burden on the company and its managers of
litigating in Wisconsin.
The forum selection clause appears plainly in the eight-page Subcontract in a section
entitled “Disputes.” There are no allegations that Tri-State exercised or exploited any special
3
The parties appear to agree that both Massachusetts and Wisconsin follow the federal commonlaw standard described by the Supreme Court in Bremen, and both rely on Bremen in their
submissions. There is therefore no need to address a larger Erie question as to whether to treat the
issue of a forum selection clause’s enforceability as procedural or substantive. See Huffington v.
T.C. Grp., LLC, 637 F.3d 18, 23 (1st Cir. 2011).
4
bargaining power in the transaction or that Atlas Glass was coerced into signing the agreement.
Atlas Glass was not forced to decide on the spot; instead, it took almost two weeks to sign the
Subcontract. While the choice of forum provision may give one party more options than the other,
it is not so one-sided that it shocks the conscience. Additionally, courts, including Massachusetts
courts, have enforced selection clauses requiring a foreign forum in cases involving Chapter 93A
claims, which undercuts Atlas Glass’s assertion that doing so here would contravene
Massachusetts public policy. See, e.g., Carter’s of New Bedford, 790 F.3d at 294 n.5; Cambridge
Biotech Corp. v. Pasteur Sanofi Diagnostics, 740 N.E.2d 195, 201 n.7 (Mass. 2000). Finally,
litigation is a burden to small businesses, regardless of the location. Unless all the parties reside in
the selected jurisdiction, one party would always be in the position of bearing the additional burden
of traveling. Atlas Glass has failed to show that proceeding in Wisconsin would be so gravely
difficult and inconvenient that it would effectively deprive it of its day in court. Overall, this
appears to have been an arm’s length transaction between two experienced companies operating
in a particular industry, and enforcement of the contractual terms is not unreasonable.
For the foregoing reasons, Tri-North’s request to declare the parties’ forum selection clause
valid and to dismiss the case for failure to state claim is GRANTED. The case is dismissed without
prejudice.
It is SO ORDERED.
/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
5
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?