The Plaintiff, Cedar Rihani, had been employed by Baseball Express, Inc., which was later purchased by the Defendant Team Express. Mr. Rihani's employment contract contained a confidentiality, non-competition, and non-solicitation agreement with the company. He filed this action in the Federal District Court as a declaratory judgment, seeking to nullify the employment agreement. Mr. Rihani filed the case in Maryland's Federal District court despite a provision within the contract which stated, "This agreement, construction of its terms, and the interpretation of the parties' rights and duties shall be governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of Maryland, and venue for all actions arising out of or in any way related to this agreement shall be irrevocably set in Howard County, Maryland." Based on this language, Team Express filed a Motion to Dismiss stating that the venue selection clause requires any action to be brought in the Circuit Court of Maryland for Howard County. Judge Motz found that the forum-selection clause clearly precluded venue in the Federal District Court and therefore granted the Motion to Dismiss.

While the Plaintiff disputed the validity or enforceability of the underlying contract, he did not take issue with the validity of the forum-selection provision at issue, but contended it did not foreclose his ability to file suit in Federal Court. The question at issue was whether the language "venue . . . shall be irrevocably set in Howard County" prohibited litigating this matter in the Federal District Court. Team Express asserted that the language required the case to be brought in a court physically located within Howard County, the Plaintiff countered that the suit could be brought in state or federal court as long as that court has venue over Howard County.

(It is noteworthy therefore that a case removed from the Circuit Court of Maryland for Howard County would properly be litigated in the Federal District Court for the District of Maryland's Northern Division—where this case was filed).

 It is well-established that a forum-selection clause in a contract can bind parties to a specific jurisdiction or venue. However, a forum-selection clause that precludes litigation in a federal district court must be clear and unambiguous. The Opinion noted that federal courts are split as to whether a forum-selection clause precludes venue in federal district court when the language of the clause only limits venue geographically (i.e. to a municipality or county) and the federal court does not physically lie within that municipality. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has not previously addressed this issue, but in Nahigian v. Juno-Loudoun, LLC, 661 F. Supp.2d at 567, a case in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the precise question at issue was addressed.

The eastern district of Virginia court noted that the limitation was geographic "because it contained no reference to a specific court, court system or sovereignty" Id. That Court also held that a geographic restriction would permit litigation in all courts having jurisdiction over that area, not only courts physically located within the specified boundary.

Judge J. Frederick Motz respectfully disagreed, creating a split of opinion in these two Federal Districts within the Fourth Circuit. In his view there is no reason why a limitation of geography cannot also create a de facto limitation of sovereignty. "A forum-selection clause, like other contractual provisions, must be interpreted in accordance with its plain meeting." Rihani at *6. Therefore the Court determined that a venue limitation should mean what it says, and when its language prohibits venue outside a geographic boundary it must prohibit venue in any court that sits outside that geographic boundary. Given that the Federal District Court for the District of Maryland, both the northern and southern division courthouses, physically sit outside of Howard County, the Court granted the motion to dismiss based on improper venue.