Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractsettlementbreach of contractmotionleasecorporationmotion to dismiss
lawsuitsettlementmotionleaseforeclosurecorporationmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Andes v. Versant Corp., 788 F.2d 1033, 5 Fed.R.Serv.3d 946
View Case »
Kilberg v. Northeast Airlines, Inc., nan
View Case »
McCord v. Jet Spray Intern. Corp., 874 F.Supp. 436
View Case »
In re Marriage of Crosby & Grooms, 116 Cal.App.4th 201, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 146, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1695, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2531
View Case »
National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Chambers, 53 N.J. Eq. 468, 8 Dickinson 468, 32 A. 663
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Tjontveit v. Den Norske Bank ASA, 997 F.Supp. 799

Facts

Thor K. Tjontveit, a Texas resident and owner of several corporations, sued DNB for breach of contract related to a stock purchase agreement and a lien on a Boeing 707 aircraft. Tjontveit claimed that DNB failed to deliver shares of Air Express to his company, Nord Construction Scandinavia A/S, and wrongfully seized the aircraft from a German corporation. DNB argued that the claims were released in a prior settlement agreement executed in Norway, which included a forum selection clause designating Norwegian courts as the proper venue.

Tjontveit, a citizen and resident of Texas, was the owner of several international businesses. One of the corporations involved in this dispute, Nord Construction Scandinavia A/S (“Nord”), was a Norwegian corporation. Nord was owned equally by Tjontveit individually and another of his corporations, Wien Air Alaska, Inc. (“Wien”), an Alaska corporation with its principal place of business in Texas.

Issue

Whether the court should dismiss the case based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, given the existence of a settlement agreement with a forum selection clause in favor of Norway.

DNB contends that both of the claims now asserted by Tjontveit were released in a settlement agreement executed in Oslo, Norway, dated January 13, 1994. The settlement agreement contains a forum selection clause and a choice-of-law provision in which the parties agree to resolve any disputes concerning the agreement in the Oslo City Court in Oslo, Norway, under Norwegian law.

Rule

The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court to dismiss a case if another forum is more convenient for the parties and serves the interests of justice. A forum selection clause is presumptively valid and creates a strong presumption favoring the agreed-upon forum.

The doctrine of forum non conveniens rests upon a court's inherent power to control the parties and cases before it and to prevent its process from becoming an instrument of abuse or injustice.

Analysis

The court analyzed the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice, concluding that Norway was a more appropriate forum due to the location of the events, the parties involved, and the existence of a settlement agreement that included a forum selection clause. The court noted that Tjontveit was merely suing as a successor-in-interest and that his choice of forum was entitled to less deference because he was not the original party to the contract.

While this court accords some deference to Tjontveit's choice of this forum, DNB's inconvenience greatly outweighs the deference due to this choice in view of the extremely tenuous relationship of the underlying dispute to the Southern District of Texas.

Conclusion

The court granted DNB's motion to dismiss the case on the grounds of forum non conveniens, determining that the claims should be resolved in Norway as per the settlement agreement.

The court granted DNB's motion to dismiss based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, determining that Norway was a more appropriate forum for the resolution of the claims.

Who won?

Den norske Bank ASA (DNB) prevailed in the case because the court found that the claims were subject to a settlement agreement that designated Norway as the proper forum for resolution.

DNB declared Tjontveit's current lawsuit to be “a transparent attempt to complicate and thus delay the previously pending foreclosure actions in Norway and to avoid the release and forum selection clause of the Norwegian agreement.”

You must be