# Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 20, 1988 · 487 U.S. 22

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431376

## Case

- **Full name:** STEWART ORGANIZATION, INC., Et Al. v. RICOH CORP. Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 20, 1988
- **Citations:** 487 U.S. 22; 56 U.S.L.W. 4659; 108 S. Ct. 2239; 101 L. Ed. 2d 22; 1988 U.S. LEXIS 2791
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kennedy
- **Judges:** Marshall, Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Scalia
- **Cited by:** 3,115 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Questioned by Salovaara v. Jackson National Life Insurance, 66 F. Supp. 2d 593 (1999).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431376

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that presence of forum-selection clause will be a “significant factor that figures centrally in the district court’s calculus,” but that § 1404(a) also requires consideration of “those public interest factors of systemic integrity and fairness that ... come under th…
- holding that forum selection clause providing that “any appropriate state or federal district court located in the Borough of Manhattan, New York City, New York, shall have exclusive jurisdiction” was not dispositive, but merely one factor to consider in transfer analysis (quo…
- holding that "[a] motion to transfer under § 1404(a) ... calls on the district court to weigh in the balance a number of case-specific factors,” including the presence of a forum-selection clause, but stating that such a clause should not receive dispositive consideration
- explaining that, “Section 1404(a) is intended to place discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions to transfer according to an ‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.’” (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964))
- holding that motions to transfer based on a forum selection clause are to be dealt with under standards established by Congress in 28 U.S,C. § 1404, with the forum selection clause receiving its proper, but not controlling, weight in the statutory factor analysis

## Opinion text

*33 Justice Kennedy,
with whom Justice O’Connor joins, concurring.
I concur in full. I write separately only to observe that enforcement of valid forum-selection clauses, bargained for by the parties, protects their legitimate expectations and furthers vital interests of the justice system. Although our opinion in The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U. S. 1, 10 (1972), involved a Federal District Court sitting in admiralty, its reasoning applies with much force to federal courts sitting in diversity. The justifications we noted in The Bremen to counter the historical disfavor forum-selection clauses had received in American courts, id., at 9 , should be understood to guide the District Court’s analysis under § 1404(a).
The federal judicial system has a strong interest in the correct resolution of these questions, not only to spare litigants unnecessary costs but also to relieve courts of time-consuming pretrial motions. Courts should announce and encourage rules that support private parties who negotiate such clauses. Though state policies should be weighed in the balance, the authority and prerogative of the federal courts to determine the issue, as Congress has directed by § 1404(a), should be exercised so that a valid forum-selection clause is given controlling weight in all but the most exceptional cases. See The Bremen, supra, at 10 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431376. Public record. Not legal advice.