that HPI’s claims, fraud in the inducement and violations of Ch. 93A, sound in tort, not contract, and are not covered by the clause. With regard to any attempt by HPI to circumvent the forum-selection clause by filing contract-related tort claims, I note that the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has held that it “cannot accept the invitation to reward attempts to evade enforcement of forum selection agreements through artful pleading of [tort] claims in the context of a contract dispute.” Lambert v. Kysar, 983 F.2d 1110, 1121 (1st Cir.1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). I find that the forum-selection clause applies to the fraud and Ch. 93A claims asserted by HPI. HPI cites a Ninth Circuit case, Hunt Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Supreme Oil, Co., 817 F.2d 75, 77 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>), to demonstrate that the language of a
holding that section 502 is an exclusive grant of jurisdiction recognizing the difference between jurisdiction over an action and jurisdiction over an issue and holding that although section 2074207 vests the family court with exclusive jurisdiction over actions to determine paternity under section 621302a1 the probate court has jurisdiction to resolve the issue of paternity when the issue is essential to the probate courts determination of heirs holding that a forumselection clause was mandatory because it provided for exclusive jurisdiction and venue in a particular court holding that the clause at issue granted jurisdiction but not exclusive jurisdiction holding that federal jurisdiction over rico claims is concurrent and not exclusive