Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., et al. v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, et al.

In Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court, 571 U.S. 49, 52 (2013), a district court refused to enforce a forum-selection clause, denying the defendant’s motion to transfer based partly on concern for the plaintiff ’s convenience. The court of appeals then denied the defendant’s mandamus petition, and this Court unanimously reversed. “When a defendant files such a motion,” the Court held, “a district court should transfer the case unless extraordinary circumstances unrelated to the convenience of the parties clearly disfavor a transfer.” The district court below also refused to enforce a forum-selection clause. Without acknowledging, much less following, Atlantic Marine’s holding on the subject, the district court denied petitioners’ motion to transfer based on California’s public policy concern for California plaintiffs’ convenience. And the Ninth Circuit summarily denied petitioners’ mandamus petition notwithstanding the district court’s disregard of Atlantic Marine. The questions presented are:

1. Whether a district court’s disregard of Atlantic Marine is sufficient grounds for mandamus relief.

2. Whether federal courts may refuse to enforce a forum-selection clause because of a public policy of the state in which the plaintiff inappropriately filed suit.