Group, and Gawad converted, or otherwise fraudulently misappropriated, the $5 million that Appellants placed into escrow. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Counts I — IV because those counts relate to Camber’s alleged non-performance of its contractual obligations (Counts I — III) or the alleged fraudulént misrepresentations made to induce Appellants to enter into the aforesaid agreements (Count IV). See Aqua Sun Mgmt., Inc. v. Divi Time Ltd., 797 So.2d 24, 24-25 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“As a general principle, a trial court must honor a mandatory forum selection clause in a contract in the absence of a showing that the clause is unreasonable' or unjust.”); see also McDonald v. Amacore Grp., Inc., No. A-1293-10T2, 2012 WL 2327727, at *4-5 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. June 20, 2012) (<HOLDING>). We further affirm, without discussion, the
holding that claims were not related to a license agreement which contained a forum selection clause in part because the bulk of the claims were against a defendant who was not a party to the agreement for breaches of employment contracts which did not contain forum selection clauses and for disclosure of trade secrets holding that a forum selection clause encompassing any case or controversy arising under or in connection with this agreement included all causes of action arising directly or indirectly from the business relationship evidenced by the contract holding that a permissive forum selection clause containing a waiver of any claims of forum non conveniens amounts to a mandatory forum selection clause at least where the plaintiff chose the designated forum holding that plaintiffs fraudulent inducement claim was subject to mandatory forum selection clause requiring litigation in florida of any claims or disputes arising from employment agreement holding that should is a preferential rather than mandatory word and that contract provision stating that parties should settle disputes in a particular forum was not a mandatory selection clause