Will a Maine court send this case to the forum our contract chose?
No Maine decision located decides it, and that gap is itself the thing to plan around. Every Maine appellate decision located that mentions a forum selection clause (there are three, and all three were read) reaches the clause from the far end, after the chosen forum has already given judgment, and treats the clause as the parties' consent to that court's personal jurisdiction. In GENUJO LOK Beteiligungs GmbH v. Zorn, recognising a German judgment under 14 M.R.S. §§ 8505-8506, the Law Court held that "[i]n the notarized recognition of debt, the parties agreed that the place of jurisdiction for all disputes ... would be Frankfurt am Main. This forum selection clause would be meaningless unless it provides courts in Frankfurt am Main with authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over the parties. Therefore, the court properly concluded that Zorn impliedly agreed to be subject to the jurisdiction of the German courts", and affirmed. Society of Lloyd's v. Baker enforced an English default judgment obtained under a forum clause, holding that "Baker failed to make any showing that the English judgment was the product of fraud or deception designed to prevent him from fully litigating a suit brought pursuant to the forum selection clause" (he had "noted" the clause and signed anyway, and chose not to defend "in order to conserve his resources"), and affirmed. Roy v. Buckley, 1997 ME 155, goes furthest: on a clause giving Quebec courts "exclusive jurisdiction" and waiving "any review by the courts of any other jurisdiction", the Law Court held "the imperatives of comity require our courts to recognize the Canadian judgment against Buckley" and VACATED the judgment below, which had refused recognition.
The trap
Do not tell a client that Maine applies the federal prima-facie-validity rule. None of the three Maine decisions located decides whether a Maine court will dismiss or stay a Maine action because the contract picked somewhere else; all three arrive after the chosen forum has ruled. The practical consequence runs one way, and Roy v. Buckley is the sharpest version of it: a Maine defendant who ignores a suit brought in the chosen forum is likely to face the resulting judgment here, because the clause supplies the consent to jurisdiction the recognition analysis asks about. Buckley refused the registered mail carrying the Quebec summons, and the Law Court called that "tantamount to an evasion of service of process" and ordered the judgment recognised. Nor does regret about the bargain help: Baker had read the clause, and Lloyd's won. Where the contract is an employment agreement, note the interaction with choice of law: Schroeder v. Rynel shows a Maine employee losing Maine wage claims to a Delaware clause, and none of the decisions read rescues a local claim from a chosen forum. One limit worth keeping in view: these are recognition cases under the foreign-judgment statute, so they say what happens to a judgment already obtained, not what a Maine court does with a Maine complaint filed in the teeth of the clause.
8 authorities
The words that state the rule
In the notarized recognition of debt, the parties agreed that the place of jurisdiction for all disputes arising in connection with or as a result of their agreement would be Frankfurt am Main. This forum selection clause would be meaningless unless it provides courts in Frankfurt am Main with authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over the parties. Therefore, the court properly concluded that Zorn impliedly agreed to be subject to the jurisdiction of the German courts.
The words that state the rule
Therefore, the court acted within the bounds of its discretion in ruling on the issue of nonrecognition without holding an evidentiary hearing. See M.R. Civ. P. 7(b)(7); see also Guardianship of K-M, 2005 ME 8, ¶ 37 , 866 A.2d 106, 117 (holding an evidentiary hearing is not required when the documentary information is adequate). The entry is: Judgment affirmed.
The words that state the rule
Baker does not allege that Lloyd’s deceived him about the meaning or purpose of the forum selection clause, nor that it was surreptitiously added to the 1987 General Undertaking. Indeed, he admits in his affidavit that before signing the 1987 General Undertaking he “noted” the forum selection clause and signed despite its presence. Moreover, Baker concedes that the entry of a default judgment against him was not the result of any chicanery on the part of Lloyd’s, but rather was the result of his decision not to defend in order to conserve his resources. Thus, Baker failed to make any showing that the English judgment was the product of fraud or deception designed to prevent him from fully litigating a suit brought pursuant to the forum selection clause, or that there was fraud in the process by which jurisdiction was established.
The words that state the rule
Given the court’s decision to recognize the English Court’s judgment as a final and valid judgment, and the inapplicability of the doctrine asserted in the demed amendment, 6 there was no error in the court’s demal of Baker’s motion to amend. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.
The words that state the rule
This agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of Quebec and the courts of such province shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any dispute hereunder. The Indemnifying Parties and the Indemnified Parties irrevocably submit to the courts of the province of Quebec in any action or proceedings arising ou[t] of or relating to this Agreement and hereby elect domicile, for all such purposes, in the judicial district of Montreal, and they furthermore agree to be bound by any final judgment of the said courts and undertake not to seek, and hereby waive, any review by the courts of any other jurisdiction with respect to the merits of any judgment obtained against either of them pursuant to this Agreement.
The words that state the rule
However, because the procedures employed by Roy were reasonably calculated to provide notice to Buckley and do not offend our concepts of due process, the imperatives of comity require our courts to recognize the Canadian judgment against Buckley. The entry is: Judgment vacated. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion herein.
The words that state the rule
In these circumstances, Buckley’s refusal to accept receipt of the registered mail from Roy’s attorneys containing a summons and a copy of the declaration was tantamount to an evasion of service of process.
The words that state the rule
The trial court did not err when it upheld the choice of law provision providing that Delaware law applies to disputes arising from the employment agreement.
“Defective” means that reading found something to correct. What you are reading is the rule as it stands after that reading.