be brought in, and you hereby consent to personal jurisdiction and venue of, any state or federal court located in New York County, New York, U.S.A.” See IAT at 8. The Defendants contend that the phrasing ‘may be brought in’ renders the clause permissive. Indeed, as the Court explained in the Prior Order, this language does make the clause facially permissive. However, the Court’s Prior Order also explained that a forum selection clause, though facially permissive, may nonetheless be deemed mandatory if it “combines permissive forum selection language with an express waiver of venue objections.” Eastman Chem. Co. v. Nestle Waters Mgmt. & Tech., 11-CV-02589, 2011 WL 4005345, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2011). See also Aguas Lenders Recovery Group v. Suez, S.A., 585 F.3d 696, 700 (2d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>) (citation removed). The provision at issue
holding that a permissive forum selection clause containing a waiver of any claims of forum non conveniens amounts to a mandatory forum selection clause at least where the plaintiff chose the designated forum holding that the forum selection clause at issue encompassed both contract and tort claims holding that when a forum selection clause designates  an arbitral forum  the proper remedy is dismissal holding that  1404a governed a forum non conveniens motion to transfer based upon a forum selection clause despite the current forums public policy that may refuse to enforce such provisions holding that a forum selection clause should not be enforced where a consumer is told by a corporate agent to ignore boilerplate contract language containing a forum selection clause where there is a material difference in bargaining power and where the forum designated by the contract has little to do with the transaction and is gravely inconvenient for the parties and witnesses