in making its ruling to remand for lack of removal jurisdiction”); Baldridge v. Kentucky-Ohio Transp., Inc., 983 F.2d 1341, 1349 (6th Cir.1993) (“We find that the so-called ‘collateral issue’ was not collateral at all .... The preemption inquiry here, unlike an inquiry into the enforceability of a forum-selection clause, necessarily ‘related to the question of jurisdiction.’ ”); see also Godsey v. Miller, 2001 U.S.App. LEXIS 9402, at *9, 9 Fed. Appx. 380, 383 (6th Cir.2001) (unpublished) (“This case differs from Regis in that the issue of a forum selection clause is an independent contractual concern created by the actions of the parties, and is not linked to the inherent subject-matter jurisdiction of the court.”); Anusbigian v. Trugreen/Chemlawn, Inc., 72 F.3d 1253 (6th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Under the second group of cases, applying the
holding that a defendant that invokes the jurisdiction of a court as a plaintiff waives its personal jurisdiction defense in all actions related to the claim for which it invoked the courts jurisdiction holding that a federal court may adjudicate claims for which there is no independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction if the nonjurisdictional claims are related to other claims for which the does have jurisdiction holding that the clause at issue granted jurisdiction but not exclusive jurisdiction holding unreviewable a decision on a nonjurisdictional issue necessarily related to the question of jurisdiction holding that although a district courts standing determination conclusively resolves a disputed question and settles an important issue separate from the merits of the case courts have recognized that the issue of standing is not effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment