Jones v. Ponant USA LLC

Background

On May 14, 2020, the court granted Ponant USA LLC’s motion to enforce a foreign forum-selection clause against Kimberly Moffat Jones and dismissed the case. On June 11, 2020, Jones moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) for reconsideration of that decision.

Reconsideration standard

The court described reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy used sparingly. Under Rule 59(e), a motion generally should be denied unless the moving party identifies controlling decisions or information the court overlooked, or shows that reconsideration is needed to correct a clear error or prevent a serious injustice. The rule cannot be used to relitigate old issues or present arguments or evidence that could have been raised before judgment.

Court’s analysis

Jones argued that the court improperly treated Ponant’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3) as a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, the legal doctrine permitting dismissal when another forum is more appropriate. The court rejected that argument. It explained that Supreme Court precedent establishes that forum non conveniens, rather than Rule 12(b)(3), is the proper method for enforcing a foreign forum-selection clause requiring suit in a specific nonfederal forum. The court also concluded that the parties had litigated the clause under forum non conveniens principles. It therefore held that treating Ponant’s motion that way without a separate request from the parties was not improper.

Jones also argued that the court should have notified her before making that procedural change. The court rejected her reliance on Sahu v. Union Carbide Corp. because that decision involved converting a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) into a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. Rule 12(d), which requires notice in that situation, applies only when a court treats a Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 12(c) motion as a summary-judgment motion. Because Ponant’s motion was brought under Rule 12(b)(3) and was treated as a forum non conveniens motion rather than a summary-judgment motion, the court held that Rule 12(d) did not require advance notice.

The court also rejected Jones’s challenge to its consideration of documents submitted with a declaration from Christopher B. Kende. In deciding a Rule 12(b)(3) motion or a forum non conveniens motion, the court said it may consider evidence outside the pleadings, including affidavits from the parties. The court further stated that the documents were matters of which Jones had notice and that were integral to her claim. The court therefore rejected her argument that she should have been allowed to submit additional affidavits only after learning that the documents would be considered.

Finally, the court rejected Jones’s arguments that she did not assent to the forum-selection clause and that the clause was too vague to enforce. The court had already considered and rejected those arguments in its earlier decision. It also explained that, even if it had not previously addressed them, Rule 59(e) could not be used to take a second opportunity to present those arguments. The court stated that none of Jones’s remaining arguments justified reconsideration.

Disposition

The court denied Jones’s motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion pending at ECF No. 49. The opinion addresses the reconsideration motion; it does not alter the court’s earlier dismissal of the case.