PGT Trkng Inc v. Robert Lyman , 500 F. App'x 202 ( 2012 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________
No. 11-2884
__________
PGT TRUCKING, INC.
v.
ROBERT B. LYMAN; LYMAN CONSULTING, LLC,
Appellants
__________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 2-11-cv-00300)
District Judge: The Honorable William L. Standish
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
June 5, 2012
BEFORE: SCIRICA, GREENAWAY, Jr., and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Filed: October 9, 2012)
__________
OPINION OF THE COURT
__________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge
I.
The parties entered into an agreement whereby Appellant Robert Lyman was
retained to, among other things, develop and implement a program to recruit Mexican
nationals as truck drivers for Appellee PGT Trucking. After Lyman accepted an
employment offer from PGT, he entered into an agreement to provide consulting services
to a Mexican trucking interest. PGT viewed this as a breach of Lyman’s employment
contract which contained, among other things, noncompetition and confidentiality
clauses. PGT filed suit in the Common Pleas Court of Beaver County, Pennsylvania.
Lyman removed the action to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania. PGT then filed a motion to remand the matter to Beaver
County, Pennsylvania pursuant to the parties’ agreement. Magistrate Judge Robert C.
Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation in which he advised that the forum
selection clause in the parties’ agreement was enforceable and that the matter should be
sent back to state court. The District Court adopted the Report and Recommendation and
granted PGT’s motion to remand. Lyman timely appealed. We will affirm.
II.
We must first determine if the order is reviewable. Appellee argues that Congress
has precluded our review of orders remanding removed cases to state courts. That is only
partially true. Ordinarily, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it
was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise, except [in civil rights cases].” 28
U.S.C. § 1447(d). However, the Supreme Court has explained that the only remands that
cannot be reviewed on appeal are those predicated upon lack of subject matter
jurisdiction or defects in the removal procedure. Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517
U.S. 706, 711-12 (1996). A remand order based upon a contractual forum-selection
clause, like that at issue here, is not a remand based upon a procedural defect or lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. Therefore, since the District Court’s remand order was not
2
based upon a ground specified in § 1447, § 1447(d) does not prohibit our review of the
District Court’s order. See Foster v. Chesapeake Ins. Co., 933 F.2d 1207 (3d Cir. 1991).
We now turn the merits of the appeal.
III.
If a defendant has removed a case in violation of a forum selection clause, remand
is the appropriate and effective remedy for the wrong. Foster, 933 F.2d at 1217. Here,
we find no reason to differ with the District Court’s determination that Lyman is stuck
with his bargain. Forum selection clauses are entitled to great weight, and are
presumptively valid. Coastal Steel Corp. v. Tilghman Wheelabrator Ltd., 709 F.2d 190,
202 (3d Cir.1983) (overruled on other grounds by Lauro Lines v. Chasser, 490 U.S. 495
(1989).
The District Court did not err when it held that the Appellants unambiguously
waived their right to a federal forum. The clear and unambiguous language of the
provision before us allows no other conclusion than that the parties intended to establish
Beaver County, Pennsylvania as the sole location for litigating their disputes:
10. GOVERNING LAW – This agreement shall be
governed by, interpreted, construed, and enforced in
accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. Enforcement of or any legal actions for breach
of this Agreement shall be brought only in the Common Pleas
Court of Beaver County, PA.
This forum selection clause does not require that we interpret any statute, state or federal;
instead, it is the bargained-for result of the parties’ counseled negotiation.
3
Lyman argues that PGT’s claims are unrelated to the subject matter of the
agreement, maintaining instead that the forum selection clause only controls breach of
contract actions. Lyman’s duties as a consultant under the agreement, however, were not
limited to recruiting Mexican nationals for driving positions. The agreement provides
that Lyman was to “provide such other tasks or projects as he may be assigned by
Company Management.” Since the claims at issue here arose from Lyman’s performance
of tasks assigned to him by PGT, the agreement’s forum selection clause applies.
IV.
In sum, we hold that the forum selection clause memorializes the parties’ intention
to litigate all contractual disputes in the state courts of Pennsylvania. Thus, the
Appellants have waived the right to removal. We will affirm the order remanding to state
court substantially for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation.
4