enforceability of the forum-selection clause in Texas

2018See, e.g., Lisa Laser USA, Inc., 310 S.W.3d at 884 (not addressing enforceability after noting that “HealthTronics does not argue that the forum- selection clause is unenforceable”). 3.

2015See id. at 692–93.

2021In 2014, we noted that the Texas Supreme Court has rejected the argument that “the failure to provide a copy of an agreement containing a forum selection clause to a claimant constitutes the type of fundamental unfairness that precludes enforcement of the forum selection clause.” Id. at *9 (citing Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 595 (1991) (“[F]orum-selection clauses contained in form passage contracts are subject to judicial scrutiny for fundamental fairness.”); In re Int’l Profit Assocs., 286 S.W.3d 921, 924 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding) (finding that the “fundamental fa

2020Id. at 784–94.

2021In 2014, we noted that the Texas Supreme Court has rejected the argument that “the failure to provide a copy of an agreement containing a forum selection clause to a claimant constitutes the type of fundamental unfairness that precludes enforcement of the forum selection clause.” Id. at *9 (citing Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 595 (1991) (“[F]orum-selection clauses contained in form passage contracts are subject to judicial scrutiny for fundamental fairness.”); In re Int’l Profit Assocs., 286 S.W.3d 921, 924 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding) (finding that the “fundamental fa

2019For this second proposition, Relators rely on In re VNA, Inc., 403 S.W.3d at 486-88 ; In re ReadyOne Indus., Inc., 400 S.W.3d at 169, 172-73 ; and In re ReadyOne Industries, Inc., 394 S.W.3d 680, 684, 686-88 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2012, orig. proceeding).

2019For this second proposition, Relators rely on In re VNA, Inc., 403 S.W.3d at 486-88 ; In re ReadyOne Indus., Inc., 400 S.W.3d at 169, 172-73 ; and In re ReadyOne Industries, Inc., 394 S.W.3d 680, 684, 686-88 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2012, orig. proceeding).

2014See In re ADM Investor Servs., 304 S.W.3d at 375 (“The burden of proof is heavy for the party challenging enforcement.”); Abacan Technical Servs.

2014See Dukatt v. Dukatt, 355 S.W.3d 231, 237 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, pet. denied) (recognizing appellate courts must affirm denial of special appearance on any legal theory supported by the evidence in the absence of findings and conclusions). 23 pursuant to the forum-selection clause.

2013See Young v. Valt.X Holdings, Inc., 336 S.W.3d 258, 262 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010, pet. dism’d) (distinguishing between applicability and enforceability of forum-selection clause). 6 invoice and subsequent contract as “‘part of a single, unified instrument.’” Id. (quoting Fort Worth Indep.

2013See Young v. Valt.X Holdings, Inc., 336 S.W.3d 258, 262 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010, pet. dism’d) (distinguishing between applicability and enforceability of forum-selection clause). 6 invoice and subsequent contract as “‘part of a single, unified instrument.’” Id. (quoting Fort Worth Indep.