Opinion ID: 772183
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: 76 Before addressing the merits of Zhen Hua's argument, we must resolve the parties' dispute over the standard of review applicable to the district court's conclusions about the existence, or lack thereof, of the two purported agreements. According to Zhen Hua, the district court decided the contractual formation issues as a matter of summary judgment and therefore our review is de novo. In response, Titan contends that the district court appropriately made findings of fact based on the parties' evidentiary submissions and that we review such findings, including the court's factual findings on formation, for clear error. 77 The determination of whether there was a meeting of the minds sufficient to constitute a contract is one of fact. See Interocean Shipping Co. v. National Shipping & Trading Corp., 523 F.2d 527, 534 (2d Cir. 1975). This remains true regardless of whether the contract at issue is an arbitration agreement, see Genesco, Inc. v. T. Kakiuchi & Co., 815 F.2d 840, 845 (2d Cir. 1987) (Based on [written] exchanges and after a detailed review of the voluminous evidentiary submissions, the district court found that [plaintiff] had agreed to arbitrate its disputes under both the signed and unsigned agreements with... defendants. We see no reason to disturb this factual finding.), or a charter party, see Great Circle Lines, Ltd. v. Matheson & Co., 681 F.2d 121, 125 (2d Cir. 1982) (Whether there was a meeting of the minds resulting in a charter party is a question of fact.). 78 When parties disagree about whether they entered into an arbitration agreement subject to the FAA, the FAA directs that the court shall proceed summarily to... trial of the issue. 9 U.S.C. §4. Contrary to Zhen Hua's characterization of the proceedings below, the district court's opinion and the record make clear that the district court did try the issue of whether the parties formed an agreement to arbitrate. Although the district court did not hold an evidentiary hearing, the parties filed multiple briefs and extensive evidence with the court over a two-year period. Most significantly, the parties submitted the telex and facsimile communications that were alleged to have formed the ad hoc arbitration agreement (according to Zhen Hua) and the charter party (according to Titan). No dispute existed as to the authenticity of these communications. Instead, the parties disagreed over the meaning of the communications. 79 In addition, Zhen Hua did not and does not now seek an evidentiary hearing. Nowhere in its briefs does Zhen Hua assert that it requested the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing. Furthermore, Zhen Hua does not contest (or even address) the district court's statement in footnote twelve of its first opinion that notwithstanding [s]ection 4 of the FAA..., no such hearing [was] required. See Titan I, 16 F. Supp.2d at 337 n.12 (internal citation omitted). Finally, Zhen Hua explicitly disclaims that the case should be remanded to the district court for such a hearing: 80 Neither Titan nor Zhen Hua seeks remand for a factual trial, nor is a trial appropriate when the sole issue is whether, as a matter of law and through application of the presumption favoring arbitration, the parties' communications reflect an enforceable agreement to arbitrate the issue of charter formation. 81 Appellant's Reply Br. at 12-13 (emphasis added). Consequently, under the circumstances of the matter sub judice, we hold that the district court tried the issue of formation (of both purported agreements) on the papers and that Zhen Hua has waived any right under the FAA to an evidentiary hearing. 82 The correct standard of review of the facts found by the trial court is contained in Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.... As stated in the rule, the clearly erroneous standard of review controls our consideration of the factual findings of the district court even though based upon a documentary record. See Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, North Carolina, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985). We are not permitted to find the district court's findings of fact to be clearly erroneous if the findings are one of two permissible views of the evidence. See id.