The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that when some, but not all, litigants have a forum-selection clause and the party having the clause files a motion to sever and transfer its claims to the forum chosen in the contract, the motion should be granted. In In re RollsRoyce Corporation ____ F.3d. ____ (5th Cir. 2014) 2014 WL 7403467 the plaintiff was the owner of a helicopter which sank after skid-mounted emergency pontoon floats failed. Suit was brought against three defendants including RollsRoyce. The warranty covering the RollsRoyce part contained a forum-selection clause requiring litigation to be brought in Indiana. The trial court refused to sever and transfer the case because all of the defendants were not covered by the forum-selection clause. RollsRoyce filed a petition for a writ of mandamus which was granted by the Fifth Circuit.
The Fifth Circuit granted the mandamus petition and in so doing held:
“Here the district court erred in not considering RollsRoyce”?s forum-selection clause when conducting its severance-and-transfer analysis. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record indicating special administrative difficulties with severance, or that the interests of the defendants not privy to the clause would be significantly threatened. It remains that such interests can be secured by the hand of an experienced federal trial judge with such devices as common discovery among separated cases and sequencing of any dispositive motions or trials. As we recognized in Volkswagen “Writs of mandamus are supervisory in nature and are particularly appropriate when the issues also have an importance beyond the immediate case.”