---
title: Forum Selection and Venue
description: An overview of the legal principles and standards governing forum selection and venue in civil litigation.
keywords: [forum selection, venue, personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, choice of law, civil procedure]
category: law
---

## Introduction to Forum Selection and Venue

The selection of the proper forum and venue for the resolution of a civil dispute is a critical consideration in litigation strategy. The court's power to hear a case, known as "jurisdiction," is determined by a complex interplay of constitutional principles, federal and state statutes, and common law doctrines. Litigants must carefully navigate these rules to ensure their claims are brought in a forum with the authority to adjudicate the matter and apply the appropriate substantive law. Failure to establish proper jurisdiction can result in the dismissal of a case or the nullification of a judgment.

## Personal Jurisdiction and Minimum Contacts

A court's personal jurisdiction over a defendant is rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which requires that the defendant have "minimum contacts" with the forum state such that subjecting them to suit there "does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" *Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington*, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). This standard may be met through the defendant's continuous and systematic contacts with the forum (general jurisdiction) or through specific acts that give rise to the plaintiff's claims (specific jurisdiction). *Daimler AG v. Bauman*, 571 U.S. 117, 126-27 (2014). Absent such minimum contacts, a court generally lacks personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant.

## Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Choice of Law

In addition to personal jurisdiction, a court must also have subject matter jurisdiction—the authority to hear the type of claim asserted. This is typically determined by the nature of the claim, the amount in controversy, and whether the case arises under federal or state law. *28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1332.* If a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the case, even if personal jurisdiction exists. *Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.*, 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). The applicable substantive law, or "choice of law," is then determined by the forum court's conflict of laws analysis, which may differ depending on the basis for subject matter jurisdiction. *Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co.*, 313 U.S. 487, 496 (1941).

## Venue and Forum Non Conveniens

Even when a court has both personal and subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiff must still establish that venue is proper in that forum. Venue statutes specify the geographic locations where a case may be filed, based on factors such as the defendant's residence, the location of the events giving rise to the claim, or the location of property at issue. *28 U.S.C. § 1391.* If venue is improper, the court may transfer the case to an appropriate district or dismiss it altogether. *28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).* Additionally, a court may invoke the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens to dismiss a case, even if venue is proper, if an alternative forum is significantly more convenient for the parties and witnesses. *Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno*, 454 U.S. 235, 255-56 (1981).

## Forum Selection Clauses

Parties to a contract may agree in advance to litigate any disputes in a particular forum, known as a "forum selection clause." Such clauses are generally enforceable unless the plaintiff can show that enforcement would be unreasonable or unjust under the circumstances. *M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.*, 407 U.S. 1, 15 (1972). Federal courts must give effect to valid forum selection clauses, even if they would otherwise lack personal jurisdiction over the defendant. *Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court*, 571 U.S. 49, 59-60 (2013). However, forum selection clauses do not override statutory venue requirements, and a court may still transfer a case to a more convenient forum under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). *Id. at 59.*

## Removal Jurisdiction and Remand

When a plaintiff files a case in state court, the defendant may have the right to "remove" the case to federal court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the matter. *28 U.S.C. § 1441.* However, the defendant bears the burden of establishing the propriety of removal, and any doubts are resolved in favor of remand to state court. *Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets*, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941). If the federal court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the removed case, it must remand the matter back to state court. *28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).*

## Conclusion

The selection of the proper forum and venue for civil litigation is a complex endeavor that requires a thorough understanding of personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, choice of law, and the various statutes and common law doctrines governing these issues. Litigants must carefully analyze the facts of their case and the applicable legal standards to ensure their claims are brought in a court with the authority and competence to adjudicate the matter. Failure to establish proper jurisdiction can result in the dismissal of a case or the nullification of a judgment, making forum selection a critical strategic consideration in any civil dispute.