With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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.

A: recognizing that shall will and must are all mandatory terms
B: holding that a forumselection clause was mandatory because it provided for exclusive jurisdiction and venue in a particular court
C: holding that remand to state court was appropriate where mandatory forumselection clause placed venue in a specified county of the state
D: 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
D.