WPCx^ lTagW<SU?!-2z .JD@88w'jHb?=) q4Ara+(|/1$iQE/A.3Z"+xF{ ZgjBK'w exFϞs- m$HvQ\X %1)݌؇瘡cUԄG5xWû4Bh|v{3)̴:bpC"Z(J 'ꨵ~|/0fX4NCr|%#!F U>g % 0( ^ w@ 4 3 B mD U:[ [ 0D b 0D  b% E- N/ / 1 .:-H ggZ# *++N --7788Z99R@R@BBHHN IIHTHT^U^V^VZtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtWtW B]]]]]]]]]]] 0]HP LaserJet 4 LOCAL,,,,,,0<( 9Z+&Courier RegularX($/N* D0*Bar͉3|x U,`  "CG Times Bold(3$ !  - -($  *  - -  _$XXXX    1    _Asthedistrictcourtnoted,thereisnoconflictbetween  federalcommonlawandPuertoRicolawregardingthe_enforceability_offorumselectionclauses.SeeStereo_Gema_,Inc.v._Magnadyne_ @ Corp.,941F.Supp.271,276(citingUnisysPuertoRicov._Ramallo_ X Bros.Printing,Inc.,91_J.T.S._Ԁ69,885556(1991)(D.P.R.1996))   (statingthatthePuertoRicoSupremeCourthasadoptedthefederaljurisprudenceregardinggeneral_enforceability_Ԁofforumselectionclauses).WethereforefollowthereasoningofthedistrictcourtanddonotreachtheErieissueofwhichlawshouldapplytoforum  @ selectionclausesinsuitsbasedupondiversityofcitizenship.SeeLambertv._Kysar_,983F.2d1110,1116&n.10(1st.Cir.1993)    (decliningtoconfront"thedauntingquestionwhetherforumselectionclausesaretobetreatedassubstantiveorproceduralforEriepurposes,"observingthattheSupremeCourthasnotyet (   resolvedtheissue,andnotingcircuitsplitonproperapproach). _$XXXX    5    _WedonotconsiderBritannica'sassertionthatitraisedthis  defenseinitsanswertoappellant'scomplaint. 0 $X#XXX    1    _=#Xdd=Asthedistrictcourtnoted,thereisnoconflictbetween  federalcommonlawandPuertoRicolawregardingthe_enforceability_offorumselectionclauses.SeeStereo_Gema_,Inc.v._Magnadyne_ @ Corp.,941F.Supp.271,276(citingUnisysPuertoRicov._Ramallo_ X Bros.Printing,Inc.,91_J.T.S._Ԁ69,885556(1991)(D.P.R.1996))   (statingthatthePuertoRicoSupremeCourthasadoptedthefederaljurisprudenceregardinggeneral_enforceability_Ԁofforumselectionclauses).WethereforefollowthereasoningofthedistrictcourtanddonotreachtheErieissueofwhichlawshouldapplytoforum  @ selectionclausesinsuitsbasedupondiversityofcitizenship.SeeLambertv._Kysar_,983F.2d1110,1116&n.10(1st.Cir.1993)    (decliningtoconfront"thedauntingquestionwhetherforumselectionclausesaretobetreatedassubstantiveorproceduralforEriepurposes,"observingthattheSupremeCourthasnotyet (   resolvedtheissue,andnotingcircuitsplitonproperapproach). > _$XXXX    3    _Thisisonlyoneofthevariegatedviewsamongthecircuits  concerningtheappropriatevehicleforamotiontodismissbasedonaforumselectionclause.TheThirdCircuitjoinsthisCourtincharacterizingthemotionasaRule12(b)(6)defense,see X Instrumentation_Assocs_.,Inc.v._Madsen_Ԁ_Elecs_.(Canada)Ltd.,859   F.2d4,6n.4(3dCir.1988),whileothercircuitshaveconsideredsuchmotionsasbasedonRule12(b)(3)(impropervenue),see_Lipcon_ `  v.Underwriter'satLloyd's,London,148F.3d1285,1289(11thCir. ( x 1998);Richardsv.Lloyd'sofLondon,135F.3d1289,1292(9thCir.  @ 1998);_Frietsch_v._Refco_,Inc.,56F.3d825,830(7thCir.1995);    CommerceConsultants_Int'l_v._Vetrerie_Ԁ_Riunite_,867F.2d697,698    (D.C.Cir.1989),oronRule12(b)(1)(lackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction),seeAVC_Netherland_ԀB.V.v.AtriumInv._P'ship_,740 `  F.2d148,153(2dCir.1984).Stillothershavenotyetdecidedtheissue.See_Haynsworth_v.Lloyd'sofLondon,121F.3d956,961   (5thCir.1997)(refrainingfromresolvingthe"enigmaticquestionofwhethermotionstodismissonthebasisofforumselectionclausesareproperlybroughtasmotionsunderFed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(1),12(b)(3),or12(b)(6),or28U.S.C.1406(a)");Shellv.  R.W.Sturge,Ltd.,55F.3d1227,1229(6thCir.1995)(statingonly  thatthe_enforceability_Ԁofaforumselectionclauseis_reviewable_ P  denovo);Rileyv.KingsleyUnderwritingAgencies,Ltd.,969F.2d  953,956(10thCir.1992)(observingthatsuchmotionsare"frequentlyanalyzedas[motions]todismissforimpropervenueunderFed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(3),"butfailingtoresolvethequestion). P _$XXXX    6    _Weemphasize,however,thatevenamandatoryforumselection  clausedoesnotinfactdivestacourtofjurisdictionthatitotherwiseretains.SeeZapata,407U.S.at12("Nooneseriously @ contends...thattheforumselectionclause'ousted'theDistrictCourtofjurisdictionoverZapata'saction.");_LCF_   Lessors,Inc.,739F.2dat6("[_S]uch_Ԁaprovisiondoesnotoustthe  jurisdictionofthecourts.")(quotingCentralContractingCo.v. `  Maryland_Cas_.Co.,367F.2d341,345(3dCir.1966));cf.Brown, ( x 891F.2dat357("[I]tiswellsettledthatthefailuretostateapropercauseofactioncallsforajudgmentonthemeritsandnotforadismissalforwantofjurisdiction.")(quotingBellv.Hood,    327U.S.678,682(1946)).Rather,"[theclause]merelyconstitutesastipulationinwhichthepartiesjoininaskingthecourttogiveeffecttotheiragreementbydecliningtoexerciseitsjurisdiction."_LCF_ԀLessors,Inc.,739F.2dat6(quoting   CentralContractingCo.,367F.2dat345)."Exclusive h  jurisdiction"inthiscontextthusreferstotheintentofthepartiesratherthantheactualpowerofthecourt.  $X#XXX    2    _TheoriginalcomplaintwasfiledbySilvaandsixteenother  formerindependentcontractorsemployedbyBritannica.Thecourtdismissedthefifteenremainingplaintiffsforfailingtomeettherequiredamountincontroversyfordiversityjurisdiction.See28 X U.S.C.1332(a).  _$XXXX    2    _TheoriginalcomplaintwasfiledbySilvaandsixteenother  formerindependentcontractorsemployedbyBritannica.Thecourtdismissedthefifteenremainingplaintiffsforfailingtomeettherequiredamountincontroversyfordiversityjurisdiction.See28 X U.S.C.1332(a). D $X#XXX    3    _Thisisonlyoneofthevariegatedviewsamongthecircuits  concerningtheappropriatevehicleforamotiontodismissbasedonaforumselectionclause.TheThirdCircuitjoinsthisCourtincharacterizingthemotionasaRule12(b)(6)defense,see X Instrumentation_Assocs_.,Inc.v._Madsen_Ԁ_Elecs_.(Canada)Ltd.,859   F.2d4,6n.4(3dCir.1988),whileothercircuitshaveconsideredsuchmotionsasbasedonRule12(b)(3)(impropervenue),see_Lipcon_ `  v.Underwriter'satLloyd's,London,148F.3d1285,1289(11thCir. ( x 1998);Richardsv.Lloyd'sofLondon,135F.3d1289,1292(9thCir.  @ 1998);_Frietsch_v._Refco_,Inc.,56F.3d825,830(7thCir.1995);    CommerceConsultants_Int'l_v._Vetrerie_Ԁ_Riunite_,867F.2d697,698    (D.C.Cir.1989),oronRule12(b)(1)(lackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction),seeAVC_Netherland_ԀB.V.v.AtriumInv._P'ship_,740 `  F.2d148,153(2dCir.1984).Stillothershavenotyetdecidedtheissue.See_Haynsworth_v.Lloyd'sofLondon,121F.3d956,961   (5thCir.1997)(refrainingfromresolvingthe"enigmaticquestionofwhethermotionstodismissonthebasisofforumselectionclausesareproperlybroughtasmotionsunderFed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(1),12(b)(3),or12(b)(6),or28U.S.C.1406(a)");Shellv.  R.W.Sturge,Ltd.,55F.3d1227,1229(6thCir.1995)(statingonly  thatthe_enforceability_Ԁofaforumselectionclauseis_reviewable_ P  denovo);Rileyv.KingsleyUnderwritingAgencies,Ltd.,969F.2d  953,956(10thCir.1992)(observingthatsuchmotionsare"frequentlyanalyzedas[motions]todismissforimpropervenueunderFed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(3),"butfailingtoresolvethequestion).  $!X#XXX    4    _Forthisreason,wedonotaddresswhetherBritannicawas  requiredtojoinitsdefensesagainstallplaintiffsintoasinglemotion. $#X#XXX    5    _WedonotconsiderBritannica'sassertionthatitraisedthis  defenseinitsanswertoappellant'scomplaint. P $%X#XXX    6    _Weemphasize,however,thatevenamandatoryforumselection  clausedoesnotinfactdivestacourtofjurisdictionthatitotherwiseretains.SeeZapata,407U.S.at12("Nooneseriously @ contends...thattheforumselectionclause'ousted'theDistrictCourtofjurisdictionoverZapata'saction.");_LCF_   Lessors,Inc.,739F.2dat6("[_S]uch_Ԁaprovisiondoesnotoustthe  jurisdictionofthecourts.")(quotingCentralContractingCo.v. `  Maryland_Cas_.Co.,367F.2d341,345(3dCir.1966));cf.Brown, ( x 891F.2dat357("[I]tiswellsettledthatthefailuretostateapropercauseofactioncallsforajudgmentonthemeritsandnotforadismissalforwantofjurisdiction.")(quotingBellv.Hood,    327U.S.678,682(1946)).Rather,"[theclause]merelyconstitutesastipulationinwhichthepartiesjoininaskingthecourttogiveeffecttotheiragreementbydecliningtoexerciseitsjurisdiction."_LCF_ԀLessors,Inc.,739F.2dat6(quoting   CentralContractingCo.,367F.2dat345)."Exclusive h  jurisdiction"inthiscontextthusreferstotheintentofthepartiesratherthantheactualpowerofthecourt.  $'X#XXX    2    _TheoriginalcomplaintwasfiledbySilvaandsixteenother  formerindependentcontractorsemployedbyBritannica.Thecourtdismissedthefifteenremainingplaintiffsforfailingtomeettherequiredamountincontroversyfordiversityjurisdiction.See28 X U.S.C.1332(a).  $)X#XXX    1    _Asthedistrictcourtnoted,thereisnoconflictbetween  federalcommonlawandPuertoRicolawregardingthe_enforceability_offorumselectionclauses.SeeStereo_Gema_,Inc.v._Magnadyne_ @ Corp.,941F.Supp.271,276(citingUnisysPuertoRicov._Ramallo_ X Bros.Printing,Inc.,91_J.T.S._Ԁ69,885556(1991)(D.P.R.1996))   (statingthatthePuertoRicoSupremeCourthasadoptedthefederaljurisprudenceregardinggeneral_enforceability_Ԁofforumselectionclauses).WethereforefollowthereasoningofthedistrictcourtanddonotreachtheErieissueofwhichlawshouldapplytoforum  @ selectionclausesinsuitsbasedupondiversityofcitizenship.SeeLambertv._Kysar_,983F.2d1110,1116&n.10(1st.Cir.1993)    (decliningtoconfront"thedauntingquestionwhetherforumselectionclausesaretobetreatedassubstantiveorproceduralforEriepurposes,"observingthattheSupremeCourthasnotyet (   resolvedtheissue,andnotingcircuitsplitonproperapproach).  $+X#XXX    2    _TheoriginalcomplaintwasfiledbySilvaandsixteenother  formerindependentcontractorsemployedbyBritannica.Thecourtdismissedthefifteenremainingplaintiffsforfailingtomeettherequiredamountincontroversyfordiversityjurisdiction.See28 X U.S.C._1332(a)._ D $-X#XXX    3    _Thisisonlyoneofthevariegatedviewsamongthecircuits  concerningtheappropriatevehicleforamotiontodismissbasedonaforumselectionclause.TheThirdCircuitjoinsthisCourtincharacterizingthemotionasaRule12(b)(6)defense,see X Instrumentation_Assocs_.,Inc.v._Madsen_Ԁ_Elecs_.(Canada)Ltd.,859   F.2d4,6n.4(3dCir.1988),whileothercircuitshaveconsideredsuchmotionsasbasedonRule12(b)(3)(impropervenue),see_Lipcon_ `  v.Underwriter'satLloyd's,London,148F.3d1285,1289(11thCir. ( x 1998);Richardsv.Lloyd'sofLondon,135F.3d1289,1292(9thCir.  @ 1998);_Frietsch_v._Refco_,Inc.,56F.3d825,830(7thCir.1995);    CommerceConsultants_Int'l_v._Vetrerie_Ԁ_Riunite_,867F.2d697,698    (D.C.Cir.1989),oronRule12(b)(1)(lackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction),seeAVC_Netherland_ԀB.V.v.AtriumInv._P'ship_,740 `  F.2d148,153(2dCir.1984).Stillothershavenotyetdecidedtheissue.See_Haynsworth_v.Lloyd'sofLondon,121F.3d956,961   (5thCir.1997)(refrainingfromresolvingthe"enigmaticquestionofwhethermotionstodismissonthebasisofforumselectionclausesareproperlybroughtasmotionsunderFed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(1),12(b)(3),or12(b)(6),or28U.S.C.1406(a)");Shellv.  R.W.Sturge,Ltd.,55F.3d1227,1229(6thCir.1995)(statingonly  thatthe_enforceability_Ԁofaforumselectionclauseis_reviewable_ P  denovo);Rileyv.KingsleyUnderwritingAgencies,Ltd.,969F.2d  953,956(10thCir.1992)(observingthatsuchmotionsare"frequentlyanalyzedas[motions]todismissforimpropervenueunderFed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(3),"butfailingtoresolvethequestion).  $/X#XXX    4    _Forthisreason,wedonotaddresswhetherBritannicawas  requiredtojoinitsdefensesagainstallplaintiffsintoasinglemotion. $2X#XXX    5    _WedonotconsiderBritannica'sassertionthatitraisedthis  defenseinitsanswertoappellant'scomplaint.  _$XXXX    4    _Forthisreason,wedonotaddresswhetherBritannicawas  requiredtojoinitsdefensesagainstallplaintiffsintoasinglemotion. P $4X#XXX    6    _Weemphasize,however,thatevenamandatoryforumselection  clausedoesnotinfactdivestacourtofjurisdictionthatitotherwiseretains.SeeZapata,407U.S.at12("Nooneseriously @ contends...thattheforumselectionclause'ousted'theDistrictCourtofjurisdictionoverZapata'saction.");_LCF_   Lessors,Inc.,739F.2dat6("[_S]uch_Ԁaprovisiondoesnotoustthe  jurisdictionofthecourts.")(quotingCentralContractingCo.v. `  Maryland_Cas_.Co.,367F.2d341,345(3dCir.1966));cf.Brown, ( x 891F.2dat357("[I]tiswellsettledthatthefailuretostateapropercauseofactioncallsforajudgmentonthemeritsandnotforadismissalforwantofjurisdiction.")(quotingBellv.Hood,    327U.S.678,682(1946)).Rather,"[theclause]merelyconstitutesastipulationinwhichthepartiesjoininaskingthecourttogiveeffecttotheiragreementbydecliningtoexerciseitsjurisdiction."_LCF_ԀLessors,Inc.,739F.2dat6(quoting   CentralContractingCo.,367F.2dat345)."Exclusive h  jurisdiction"inthiscontextthusreferstotheintentofthepartiesratherthantheactualpowerofthecourt. d(J2_$ !  XXXX    0   !  _ XϖXXX ?X Xϖ8/XXdd8  *!@p p UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals   pg ?@ FortheFirstCircuit  H pgX/XHAy) ` dE<_ ` A `  No.001539@,,"_HERIBERTO_ԀSILVA,@ Plaintiff,Appellant,@tt)v.@l l ENCYCLOPEDIABRITANNICAINC.and@P P ENCYCLOPEDIABRITANNICAUSA(_EBUSA_ԀINC.),@ Defendants,Appellee.Ay) ` dE<` A ? @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT@ FORTHEDISTRICTOFPUERTORICO@$ $ [Hon._Hctor_ԀM._Laffitte_,U.S.DistrictJudge] 6 Ay) ` dE<=` A > @'Before@_Torruella_,ChiefJudge, ! @l l Lynchand_Lipez_,CircuitJudges. 5 # Ay) ` dE<"` A "&     _Osvaldo_Ԁ_Prez_Ԅ_Marrero_,wasonbrief,forappellant. d#(   MaraI.SantosRivera,withwhomFiddler,_Gonzlez_Ԁ& ,$|) _Rodrguez_,_LLP_,wereonbrief,forappellee. $D * Ay) ` dE<K'` A L'"- @"February14,_2001_ԈAy) ` d E<)` A  )%1 _=#Xdd=  *!8XXdXXd8*,X` XX* ` TORRUELLA,ChiefJudge. PlaintiffappellantHeriberto  SilvabroughtsuitintheDistrictofPuertoRicoagainsthisemployer,EncyclopediaBritannica,Inc.andEncyclopediaBritannicaU.S.A.(collectively"Britannica"),forbreachofcontract.Thecontract,whichgrantedappellantcommissionsforsellingproductsmanufacturedbyBritannica,containedthefollowingchoiceoflawandforumselectionclause:"ThisagreementshallbegovernedandconstruedbythelawsoftheStateofIllinoisandallactionsinvolvingthisagreementmustbebroughtintheStateofIllinois."Thedistrictcourtconcludedthattheforumselectionclausewasvalid,enforceableandmandatoryanddismissedthesuitwithoutprejudice.Forthereasonssetforthbelow,weaffirm.@% DISCUSSION    ` Theprevailingviewtowardscontractualforumselectionclausesisthat"suchclausesareprimafacievalidandshouldbeenforcedunlessenforcementisshownbytheresistingpartytobe'unreasonable'underthecircumstances."M/SBremenv.ZapataOff P  ShoreCo.,407U.S.1,10(1972).(   1      Appellantadvancesthree 0" argumentsagainstenforcingtheforumselectionclausehere.First, accordingtoSilva,Britannicawaiveditsvenuedefenseby @ failingtoassertittimelyandproperly.Silvaalsocontendsthattheforumselectionclauseatissueispermissive,ratherthanmandatory.Finally,Silvareassertsthegroundsrejectedbythedistrictcourtinsupportofhisclaimthattheclauseisunreasonableandshouldnotbeenforced.Wereviewadistrictcourt'sdismissalbasedonaforumselectionclausedenovo. @  Lambertv.Kysar,983F.2d1110,1111(1stCir.1993).   @tt) A.  `  ` Shortlyaftercommencementofthissuit,BritannicafiledamotiontodismissforlackofsubjectmatterjurisdictionagainstallplaintiffsexceptSilva.X*X&XX   2      ׀SeeFed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(1).The ` courtgrantedthemotionastotheseplaintiffs,anddiscoverycontinuedwithrespecttoonlySilva'sclaims.Overayearlater,Britannicafiledthemotiontodismisswhichisthesubjectofthisappeal.Appellantarguesthatbyfailingtoconsolidatethisdefensewithitsinitial12(b)motionagainsttheotherplaintiffs,BritannicawasbarredfromraisingtheissuelaterbyFed.R.Civ.P.12(g),whichreads:8 ` Apartywhomakesamotionunderthisrulemayjoinwithitanyothermotionshereinprovided X% ) forandthenavailabletotheparty.Ifapartymakesamotionunderthisrulebutomitstherefromanydefenseorobjectionthenavailabletothepartywhichthisrulepermitstoberaisedbymotion,thepartyshallnotthereaftermakeamotionbasedonthedefenseorobjectionsoomitted,exceptamotionasprovidedinsubdivision(h)(2)hereofonanyofthegroundstherestated. ` x` x Silvaclaimsthatforthesamereason,BritannicahaswaiveditsdefenseunderFed.R.Civ.P.12(h)(1)(A),whichstatesthat"[a]defenseoflackofjurisdictionovertheperson,impropervenue,insufficiencyofprocess,orinsufficiencyofserviceofprocessiswaivedifomittedfromamotioninthecircumstancesdescribedinsubdivision(g)." ` AppellantmisconstruesthelawofthisCircuit,underwhichamotiontodismissbaseduponaforumselectionclauseistreatedasoneallegingthefailuretostateaclaimforwhichreliefcanbegrantedunderFed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6).,   3      ׀Lambert,  983F.2dat1112n.1;LFCLessors,Inc.v.PacificSewerMaint.  Corp.,739F.2d4,7(1stCir.1984);cf.NingretDev.Corp.v. @ NarragansettIndianWetuomuckHous.Auth.,207F.3d21,34(1st   Cir.2000)(vacatingjudgmentfocusingonforumselectionclauseunderRule12(b)(6)forreconsiderationofexhaustionoftribalremediesunderRule12(b)(1)).Consequently,inthisCircuit,amotiontodismissbyreasonofaforumselectionclauseiscoveredbyRule12(h)(2),whichstatesthat"[a]defenseoffailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted...maybemadeinanypleadingpermittedororderedunderRule7(a),orbymotionforjudgmentonthepleadings,oratthetrialonthemerits."Fed.R.Civ.P.12(h)(2).ThisprovisionconstitutesanexceptiontotheconsolidationrequirementofRule12(g)andthereforeamotiontodismissonforumselectiongroundsisnotboundtothestrictlimitationsof12(h)(1).1x.x x   4      ׀SeeFrietschv.Refco,Inc.,56F.3d  825,830(7thCir.1995)(observingthatifthemotiontodismisswerebasedon12(b)(6),defendant"wouldescapetheclutchesofRule12(h)(1)"). ` Accordingly,amotiontodismissbasedonaforumselectionclausemayberaisedatanytimeintheproceedingsbeforedispositiononthemerits.Cf.Brownv.TrusteesofBoston #@( Univ.,891F.2d337,357(1stCir.1989)(holdingthatbywaiting  untilafterthejuryreacheditsverdict,UniversityhadwaiveditsRule12(b)(6)defense).Britannicametthisrequirementbyfilingitsmotiontodismissbeforethecompletionofdiscovery.0"   5      ׀ `  Although,asappellantpointsout,Britannicaerroneouslycharacterizedthismotiontodismissasonebasedonimpropervenue,"wearenotboundbythelabelbelow,andagreethatthecaseshouldhavebeendismissed."LFCLessors,Inc.,739F.2dat   7(citingCarrv.Learner,547F.2d135,137(1stCir.1976)). 0  @tt) B.    ` Wenextturntowhetherthelanguageoftheforumselectionclauseispermissiveormandatory.Tosupporthiscontentioninfavoroftheformer,appellantcitesourrecentopinioninAutoridaddeEnergaElctricadeP.R.v.EricssonInc., P 201F.3d15(1stCir.2000).Inthatcase,weevaluatedaforumselectionclausewhichprovided:"ThepartiesagreetosubmittothejurisdictionofthecourtsofPuertoRico."ThisCourtreadthatlanguageas"anaffirmativeconferralofpersonaljurisdictionbyconsent,andnotanegativeexclusionofjurisdiction"inthefederaldistrictcourt.Id.at1819.Appellantarguesthatthe "& sameinterpretationappliesintheinstantcase.Wedisagree. ` OurholdinginEricssondidnotcreateageneralrulefor % !* forumselectionclauses,asSilvaintimatesinhisbrief.Rather,webasedourconclusiononthespecificlanguageofthecontractat (@$. issue.Infact,weexplicitlynotedthathadtheysodesired,theparties"couldeasilyhavedraftedthecontracttoprovideforexclusivejurisdictionintheCommonwealthcourts."3$   6      ׀Id.at19.   Thecontractherereflectspreciselysuchacase:theword"must"expressestheparties'intentiontomakethecourtsofIllinoistheexclusiveforumfordisputesarisingunderthecontract.See    Zapata,407U.S.at2(holdingthatacontractstatingthat"[a]ny `  disputearisingmustbetreatedbeforetheLondonCourtofJustice"   requiredthecourttoexerciseitsjurisdictionnofurtherthannecessarytoenforcetheforumselectionclause)(emphasisadded);  accordKeatyv.FreeportIndon.,503F.2d955,95657(5thCir. P 1974)(citingZapataasanexampleof"asituationwherethe 0 contract,onitsface,clearlylimit[ed]actionsthereundertocourtsofaspecifiedlocale").Wethereforeconcludethattheforumselectionclauseismandatory.  p @tt) C.    ` Sincethemotiontodismisswastimelyraisedandtheclauseismandatory,wewillupholdthedistrictcourt'sdecisionunless"enforcementwouldbeunreasonableandunjust,or...theclause[is]invalidforsuchreasonsasfraudoroverreaching."Zapata,407U.S.at15.Silvapointsoutthatthecontract    containedboilerplateprovisionsnotsubjecttonegotiationandthattheforumselectionclausewasinsmallprintonthebackofthecontract.Healsoplacesgreatweightonthe"overwhelmingbargainingpowerandinfluence"ofBritannicainthehiringprocesstosupporthisviewthattheclauseisunenforceable.Thesereasonsfallshortofmeetingtherequiredcriteriaforestablishing"fraudoroverreaching,"id.,nordothesereasons  rendertheenforcementoftheclause"unreasonableandunjust."Id. 0  ` First,thattheforumselectionclauseisa"boilerplate"provisiondoesnotipsofactorenderitinvalid."Itisnotthe P  lawthatonemustbargainforeachandeverywrittentermofacontract."Lambert,983F.2dat111920(internalquotation  !p$ omitted);seealsoCarnivalCruiseLines,Inc.v.Shute,499U.S. "& 585,593(1991)(refusingtofindanonnegotiatedforumselectionclauseinaformticketunenforceable"simplybecauseitisnotthesubjectofbargaining").Similarly,theplacementoftheclauseonthereversesideofthecontractisoflittleconsequencewhere,ashere,itisprintedclearlyinplainlanguageandinacontractofreasonablelength.Lambert,983F.2dat1120.Finally, ,`'2 Britannica'sallegedbargainingpowerisnotrelevantonthesefacts.Britannicauseditsbargainingpowertodonothingmorethanofferanappealingemploymentopportunitytoappellant,andnoevidencesuggeststhathewascoercedintoenteringtheagreement.Allthatremains,then,isanarmslengthtransaction,thetermsofwhicharebindingonbothparties.Assuch,theenforcementofthosetermsisnotunreasonable,andhencethecasewasproperlydismissed.@% CONCLUSION  0   ` Theorderofthedistrictcourtis affirmed.