1907 ("[T]he forum clause should control absent a strong showing that it should be set aside .... [the resisting party should] clearly show that enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust, or that the clause was invalid for such reasons as fraud or overreaching.”). 77 . See, e.g., Cambridge Biotech Corp. v. Pasteur Sanofi Diagnostics, 433 Mass. 122, 130, 740 N.E.2d 195 (2000) (quoting The Bremen, 407 U.S. at 18, 92 S.Ct. 1907). 78 . Lambert, 983 F.2d at 1116. 79 . Rivera v. Centro Medico de Turabo, Inc., 575 F.3d 10, 17 (1st Cir.2009). 80 . Id. (quoting 14D Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3803.1 (3d ed. 1998)). 81 . 1st Am. Compl., Ex. B [# 15]. 82 . 1st Am. Compl., Ex. B [# 15]. 83 . See, e.g., Lambert, 983 F.2d at 1112-13 (<HOLDING>); Action Corp. v. Toshiba Am. Consumer Prods.
holding that remand to state court was appropriate where mandatory forumselection clause placed venue in a specified county of the state holding that a forumselection clause was mandatory where it stated that for any action brought to enforce such terms and conditions venue shall lie exclusively in clark county washington holding that a forumselection clause was mandatory because it provided for exclusive jurisdiction and venue in a particular court recognizing that shall will and must are all mandatory terms holding clause reading the parties agree that in any dispute jurisdiction and venue shall be in california to be mandatory