Service Merchandise filed a reply to Observer’s responses. III. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER Service Merchandise argues that this Court made various purported errors in Observer Transportation, 685 F.Supp. 120, by failing to consider facts, applicable law, and argument. First, Service Merchandise asserts that this Court erred by allegedly excluding from its consideration Kenneth P. Schooley’s affidavit, which purportedly establishes that this case involves negotiated, but unfiled, rates. Second, Service Merchandise asserts that the circumstances of the present case are equivalent to the circumstances present in Family Dollar, 670 F.Supp. 644. Third, Service Merchandise urges this Court to follow the court’s holding in INF, Ltd. v. Spectro Alloys, 651 F.Supp. 1405 (D.Minn.1987) (<HOLDING>). Fourth, and finally, Service Merchandise
holding that a forum selection clause encompassing any case or controversy arising under or in connection with this agreement included all causes of action arising directly or indirectly from the business relationship evidenced by the contract holding that a release of such claims or other matters arising from the beginning of time to the date of execution of this agreement did not protect the defendant from liability arising from unconstitutional conduct that occurred after the agreements execution holding that an undercharge case arising from repeated misclassifications of freight should be referred to the icc holding that the court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute holding a limitation on damages arising out of bodily injury to one person involved in an accident applies to all claims arising from the death of that person