[NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
____________________
No. 99-2160
ROBERT ROONEY d/b/a
BIOMET ROONEY & ASSOCIATES,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
BIOMET, INC.,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Lynch and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
_____________________
Howard B. D'Amico, with whom Howard B. D'Amico, P.C. was on brief,
for appellant.
John O. Mirick, with whom Mirick, O'Connell, DeMallie & Lougee,
LLP was on brief, for appellee.
____________________
April 13, 2000
____________________
Per Curiam. In 1995 and 1997, the appellant Robert Rooney
d/b/a Biomet Rooney & Associates entered into two separate contracts
with the appellee Biomet, Inc., each of which included the following
forum selection clause:
As you are aware, Biomet has many distributors
across the United States. It is agreed that, in
the event of any dispute between us, the laws of
the State of Indiana shall govern the validity,
performance, interpretation, enforcement and any
other aspect of our agreement or relationship. It
is further agreed that any and all actions
concerning any dispute arising under our
relationship shall be filed and maintained only
in a state or federal court of competent
jurisdiction sitting in the State of Indiana, and
both of us consent to such jurisdiction.
(Emphasis added). Despite the forum selection clause, in September
1998, Rooney brought this action against Biomet in the federal district
court in Massachusetts. On September 16, 1999, the district court
enforced the forum selection clause and dismissed the case. See Rooney
v. Biomet, Inc., 63 F. Supp. 2d 126, 128 (D. Mass. 1999). In this
appeal, Rooney challenges the district court's decision.
Having thoroughly reviewed the briefs and the record, we
affirm for the reasons expressed in the district court's opinion. The
forum selection clause is valid and enforceable and the Motion to
Dismiss was properly granted. See generally Lambert v. Kysar, 983 F.2d
1110 (1st Cir. 1993).
Affirmed. Costs shall be awarded to the appellee.
-2-
Rooney v. Biomet, Inc.
Combined Opinion