With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 73 . This court need not consider the reasonableness of the exercise of jurisdiction because of its holding regarding Dish’s insufficiency of contacts with Massachusetts. See Cossaboon, 600 F.3d at 39 n. 7 (citing Sandstrom, 904 F.2d at 89). 74 . Mem. Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss, 7-9 [# 26], 75 . Lambert v. Kysar, 983 F.2d 1110, 1116 n. 10 (1st Cir. 1993). 76 . Silva v. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 239 F.3d 385, 386 (1st Cir.2001) (quoting The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10, 92 S.Ct. 1907, 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972)); see also The Bremen, 407 U.S. at 15, 92 S. ., 975 F.Supp. 170, 176 (D.P.R.1997) (explaining that mandatory terms include "shall,” "exclusive,” "only,” and "must”); Perez-Llantin v. Sea Star Line, LLC, No. 06-1406CCC, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46262, at *2-3 (D.P.R.2006) (<HOLDING>). 84 . 1st Am. Compl., Ex. B [# 15], 85 . See

A: 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
B: holding that a forumselection clause was mandatory because it provided for exclusive jurisdiction and venue in a particular court
C: holding that venue in the district identified in  9 was mandatory
D: holding that a forumselection clause may be enforced under rule 12b3 as a motion to dismiss on the basis of improper venue
B.