defenses “such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability.” Doctor’s As-socs., Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 687, 116 S.Ct. 1652, 134 L.Ed.2d 902 (1996). No such grounds are alleged here. See generally Compl. In addition, state sta , 170 F.Supp.2d 585, 593 (M.D.N.C.2001) (“[N.C. Gen. Stat] § 22B-3 is preempted by the FAA....”); Goldstein, 640 S.E.2d at 743 (“[T]he FAA preempts North Carolina’s statute and public policy regarding forum selection .... ”). Accordingly, there are no state-law grounds for revoking the forum selection clause, and the FAA requires the' court to enforce the forum selection clause. IV. Aspen argues that venue is proper in this court based on 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). See Polizzi v. Cowles Magazines, Inc., 345 U.S. 663, 664-65, 73 S.Ct. 900, 97 L.Ed. 1331 (1953) (<HOLDING>); Price v. Leasecomm Corp., 2004 WL 727028, at
holding that venue for litigation was proper based on 28 usc  1441 regardless of whether defendant was doing business in the district within the meaning of 28 usc  1391 recognizing that special venue statutes are supplemented by the 28 usc  1391 venue provisions applicable to all civil cases holding that venue for litigation was proper based on 28 usc  1441 even though forum selection clause provided that the courts of the commonwealth of massachusetts would be the exclusive forum holding that venue is proper in any judicial district in which the corporation is doing business holding that where jurisdiction was based on 28 usc  2201 venue was determined as per 28 usc  1391