1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EBERSPAECHER NORTH Case No. 09-12193

AMERICA, INC.

HONORABLE SEAN F. COX

Plaintiff, United States District Judge

v. 

CAMI AUTOMOTIVE, INC.

Defendant. 

______________________________/

OPINION & ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. No. 3]

Plaintiff Eberspaecher North America, Inc. (“ENA”) filed this cause of action against

CAMI Automotive, Inc. (“CAMI”) in the Oakland County, Michigan, Circuit Court on or about

April 9, 2009. Pursuant to this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, CAMI removed this action on June

5, 2009 [See Doc. No. 1]. The matter is currently before the Court on CAMI’s Motion to

Dismiss [Doc. No. 3], wherein CAMI seeks dismissal of this action pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.

12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6). The parties have fully briefed the issues, and a hearing was held on

October 22, 2009. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Defendant CAMI’s Motion to

Dismiss [Doc. No. 3]. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff ENA is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Oakland

County, Michigan [See Pl.’s Complaint, Doc. No. 1, ¶1], and is an automotive supplier that

manufactures exhaust systems for automobiles. Id. at ¶5. Defendant CAMI is a Canadian

corporation with its principal place of business in Ingersoll, Ontario, Canada. Id. at ¶2. 

CAMI is a joint venture between automotive manufacturers General Motors Corporation

2:09-cv-12193-SFC-DAS Doc # 8 Filed 12/29/09 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 120
2

and Suzuki Motor Corporation, and CAMI produces vehicles for both General Motors and

Suzuki at its plant in Canada. Id. at ¶6. In 2006, ENA and CAMI entered into an agreement,

whereby ENA would supply CAMI with exhaust systems for CAMI’s Suzuki XL7. Id. at ¶8. 

Per ENA’s Complaint, CAMI represented before entering into the agreement that the project

“would run for five years, and that CAMI would order a certain volume of parts from ENA

during those five years.” Id. at ¶9.

The contract between CAMI and ENA (“the Contract”) contained the following choice of

law and forum selection clause: 

GOVERNING LAW: JURISDICTION: This contract is to be construed

according to the laws of the Province of Ontario, Canada from which this

contract is issued as shown by the address of [CAMI]. . . Any action or

proceedings by [CAMI] against [ENA] may be brought by [CAMI] in any

court(s) having jurisdiction over [ENA] or, at [CAMI’s] option, in the court(s)

having jurisdiction over [CAMI’s] location, in which event [ENA] consents to

jurisdiction and service of process in accordance with applicable procedures. Any

actions or proceedings by [ENA] against [CAMI] may be brought by [ENA] only

in the court(s) having jurisdiction over the location of [CAMI] from which this

contract is issued. 

[Contract, Def.’s Ex. 1, Doc. No. 3, p.3 (emphasis added)]. 

On September 8, 2008, only two years into the five-year project, CAMI informed ENA

that the project was suspended indefinitely. Id. at ¶12. 

ENA filed this lawsuit on or about April 9, 2009 in the Oakland County, Michigan,

Circuit Court, alleging causes of action for rescission [Counts I and II] and unjust enrichment

[Count III]. In all, ENA alleges they stand to lose “more than $6.5 million” due to CAMI’s

termination of the Suzuki XL7 project. Citing the Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332, CAMI removed this lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Michigan on June 5, 2009.

2:09-cv-12193-SFC-DAS Doc # 8 Filed 12/29/09 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 121
3

On June 12, 2009, CAMI filed the instant Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 3], wherein

CAMI seeks dismissal of this action in accordance with the Contract’s forum selection clause.

[See Doc. No. 3, p.1]. ENA argues, however, that “this Court has personal jurisdiction over

CAMI because CAMI has not challenged personal jurisdiction and, by filing this Motion without

raising that defense, has waived that defense.” [Pl.’s Br., Doc. No. 4, p.1]. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Defendants bring the instant motion pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). In

assessing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must

treat all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true. Kostrzewa v. City of Troy, 247 F.3d

633, 638 (6th Cir. 2001). Dismissal is only proper if, on the pleadings themselves, the plaintiff

does not have a “reasonably founded hope” of making his or her case. Bell Atlantic v.

Twombley, 550 U.S. 554, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1970 (2007). This Court also has the power to dismiss

an action under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(3) based upon an international forum selection clause. See,

e.g., Global Link, LLC v. Karamtech Co., Ltd., 2007 WL 1343684, *1 (E.D. Mich. May 8, 2007). 

ANALYSIS

Defendant CAMI argues that the Contract’s forum selection clause requires this Court to

dismiss the instant action by ENA. The Court agrees, and therefore GRANTS CAMI’s Motion

to Dismiss [Doc. No. 3].

Michigan law holds that “[a] contract is to be construed as a whole; that all parts are to

be harmonized so far as reasonably possible.” Laevin v. St. Vincent De Paul Society of Grand

Rapids, 323 Mich. 607, 609 (1949)(internal citations omitted). It is a court’s obligation to

2:09-cv-12193-SFC-DAS Doc # 8 Filed 12/29/09 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 122
4

determine the intent of the parties by examining the language of the contract according to its

plain and ordinary meaning. In re Smith, 480 Mich. 19, 24 (2008). Courts interpret the words

used in a contract in accordance with their commonly used meanings, Citizens Ins. Co. v. ProSeal Service Group, Inc., 477 Mich. 75, 84 (2007), and must enforce an unambiguous contract

according to its plain terms. Kay Inv. Co. LLC v. Brody Realty No. 1 LLC, 273 Mich. App. 432,

437 (2006). 

Further, it is well-settled that “[a] forum selection clause in an international agreement

should control absent a strong showing that it should be set aside.” Shell v. R.W. Sturge, Ltd., 55

F.3d 1227, 1229 (6th Cir. 1995). Such clauses are “prima facie valid,” and courts should

“enforce the forum selection clause specifically unless. . . [the party can] clearly show that

enforcement would be unreasonable, unjust, or that the clause was invalid for such reasons as

fraud or overreaching.” M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 15 (1972). 

In the instant case, neither party disputes that the Contract governed the relationship

between ENA and CAMI, and neither party disputes the language of the Contract’s forum

selection clause. Again, with respect to any potential suit ENA may bring against CAMI, the

following provision governs: 

Any actions or proceedings by [ENA] against [CAMI] may be brought by [ENA]

only in the court(s) having jurisdiction over the location of [CAMI] from which

this contract is issued.

[Contract, Def.’s Ex. 1, Doc. No. 3, p.3 (emphasis added)]. 

ENA argues that this language means that, “if a court has jurisdiction over CAMI, venue

is proper in that Court.” [Pl.’s Br., Doc. No. 4, p.3]. This argument, however, ignores the

remainder of the Contract’s relevant clause: “. . . from which this contract is issued.” While that

2:09-cv-12193-SFC-DAS Doc # 8 Filed 12/29/09 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 123
5

phrase is ambiguous when read in isolation, its meaning is clear when read in conjunction with

the remainder of the contract, as the Michigan Supreme Court in Laevin instructed courts

interpreting contractual ambiguities to do. 

The “location of [CAMI] from which this contract is issued,” can be resolved simply by

looking to the first page of the contract. There, CAMI’s location is clearly listed as “Ingersoll -

Ontario.” [Contract, Def.’s Ex. 1, Doc. No. 3, p.1]. As such, the Contract’s forum selection

clause states that ENA may only bring an action against CAMI in “the court(s) having

jurisdiction over the location of [CAMI]” - i.e., the Canadian courts having jurisdiction over

Ingersoll, Ontario. 

This outcome is further supported by the language of the Contract’s forum selection and

choice of law clause. The first sentence of that clause states that “[t]his contract is to be

construed according to the laws of the Province of Ontario, Canada from which this contract is

issued.” Id. at p.3. The phrase “from which this contract is issued” clearly refers to the Province

of Ontario. Construing similar terms consistently throughout that clause, it follows that the

phrase “from which this contract is issued” at the end of that paragraph would refer to the same

location as that in the beginning of the clause - Ontario, Canada. As such, the Contract’s forum

selection clause is clear that actions by ENA against CAMI involving the Contract must be

litigated in the courts of Ontario, Canada. 

ENA’s argument regarding this Court’s personal jurisdiction over CAMI does not change

this analysis. While ENA is correct that “this Court has personal jurisdiction over CAMI

because CAMI has not challenged personal jurisdiction,” [Pl.’s Br., Doc. No. 4, p.1], the

Contract’s valid forum selection clause still governs. 

2:09-cv-12193-SFC-DAS Doc # 8 Filed 12/29/09 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 124
6

Again, forum selection clauses are “prima facie valid,” and should ordinarily be enforced

“unless. . . [the party can] clearly show that enforcement would be unreasonable, unjust, or that

the clause was invalid for such reasons as fraud or overreaching.” M/S Bremen, 407 U.S. at 15. 

As no argument has been made by ENA regarding fraud, overreaching, or other injustice in this

motion, the Court will therefore “enforce the forum selection clause specifically,” Id., by

requiring ENA to litigate this dispute in the courts of Ontario, Canada. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

[Doc. No. 3]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: December 29, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on December 29, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-12193-SFC-DAS Doc # 8 Filed 12/29/09 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 125