no valid arbitration agreement exists because an integral part of the agreement — the chosen forum for arbitration — is no longer available. Plaintiffs respond that the reference to the N.A.F. in the agreement may be severed because it is not integral, and the remainder of the agreement should be enforced. • If a forum selection clause is integral to an arbitration agreement, and the forum is unavailable, then arbitration cannot be compelled. Inetianbor v. CashCall, Inc., 768 F.3d 1346, 1350 (11th Cir.2014) (citing Brown v. ITT Consumer Fin. Corp., 211 F.3d 1217, 1222 (11th Cir.2000)). The failure of the chosen forum precludes arbitration whenever the choice of forum is an integral part of the agreement to arbitrate, rather than an ancillary logistical concern. Brown, 211 F.3d at 1222 (<HOLDING>). To decide whether the forum selection clause
holding that where an arbitration agreement between an employer and employee does not specifically provide for the handling of arbitration costs california courts should interpret the arbitration agreement  as providing  that the employer must bear the arbitration forum costs holding that the unavailability of the naf does not destroy the arbitration clause recognizing that where plaintiff is from the forum state and defendant is from an alternate forum each forum can claim a connection to one of the parties holding that choice of forum was not integral where the arbitration agreement incorporates the nafcode byreference and the nafcode selects the naf as the forum for arbitration holding that phone and facsimile communications to the forum purchase orders and payments sent to the forum a choice of law clause within the contract regarding the forum state and delivery of the product within the forum state were not enough to satisfy minimum contacts