Opinion ID: 2979245
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Forum Selection

Text: Prometheus first argues that the district court erred when it read the contract as not including a binding forum-selection clause. Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) does not require -4- No. 09-3573 GEMS v. Prometheus Health, et al. the district court to provide findings of fact or conclusions of law when ruling on a motion to dismiss, Robin Prods. Co. v. Tomecek, 465 F.2d 1193, 1196 (6th Cir. 1972), their absence in this case (by virtue of the district court’s cursory Minutes Order resolving this issue) leaves us with little guidance. Insofar as the district court’s resolution reflects factual findings, we review them for clear error. Dixon v. Ashcroft, 392 F.3d 212, 216–17 (6th Cir. 2004). But to the extent the court answered a question of law by opining on the enforceability of a forum-selection clause, we review its decision de novo. Shell v. R.W. Sturge, Ltd., 55 F.3d 1227, 1229 (6th Cir. 1995). To reject Prometheus’s forum-selection clause argument, the district court found that the parties failed to form a binding agreement regarding the proper forum for litigating contract disputes. This conclusion encompasses both factual and legal components. Evidence before the court demonstrated that the parties never entered into a contract containing the Standard Terms and Conditions, which included the forum-selection clause on which Prometheus so heavily relies. Prometheus does not contest that its agent twice expressly refused in writing to execute and return the Standard Terms and Conditions. Reviewing this finding for clear error, we would only reverse if Prometheus produced a signed copy of the agreement, which it has not, and, according to undisputed facts, cannot. Absent evidence the parties agreed to the Standard Terms and Conditions, the district court did not err when it rejected Prometheus’s forum-selection-clause argument as a matter of law. -5- No. 09-3573 GEMS v. Prometheus Health, et al.