so st issue is whether is explained at issue are subject to the form selection clause at all if they're not then there's no reason to go for if they are there some yes so we have the original operating agreement and that's in place and the game is up and running the parties are living with it and that can take the flesh because your client's getting some money from that a great correct yes and right now your client wants to change the existing agreements a new agreement for more favorable terms coersion we're not going to do that  as the supreme court has held in the atlantic marine construction case form selection causes should be enforced in all but the most unusual cases because the interest of justice is served by holding the parties to their markets this is not one of those unusual cases and this i think appeal it's important for the general to remember the facts here against the backdrop of the parameters that were placed on the district court specifically the strong presumption of all that the in favor of upholding form selection oz's so that the parties can get the benefit of the bargain the importance of form selection causes and international commerce commercial transactions like this one so that you eliminate the uncertainties when it comes to where the disputes are going to be resolved the heavy burden that's placed on the party challenged in the form selection clause where they must in this instance show clearly that in force that was either unreasonable or unjust or that the clause is invalid under fraud or over coercion they wanted to submit that and they said they asked for either and sir reply or an evidentiary hearing the judge allowed them to have us to reply i gave them the two weeks as they requested under his word spread that he would not be paid what he was doing was the new agreement well that there was no necessity to assign the newark mayor on air and that the old agreement was still in place and how determination date of the end of two thousand there would be no agreement left so he wouldn't get the payments that he would that he wouldn't get payments anymore he wouldn't have the same users because at the end of the day color switch would not be being published by four to five it's a business discussion it's not it's not a situation where they're threatening him or coercing him into enter into an agreement more and more importantly an equally as important is the fact that there was no  this particular provision in the form selection clause provision into the contract what you saying is that they threatened to that there wouldn't be an agreement anymore including the forum selection cause and money it just doesn't visibly it to the extent the court could reasonably infer that that meant that he was going not going to make the money that he was making before and when you're not in agreement anymore you're not going to make the money that you are making before that stri there will be no deal right the deal will be taken off the table because they're what they won't be in that agreement it's also important to note that the parties always have the right to terminate this agreement and eventually the subsequent agreement that he did telling us that we as enter into a new agreement to be paid right and what he said and what the way counsel said was that they would provide documentary evidence of that and they didn't provide any documentary evidence or any corroborating evidence if his declaration is not sufficient because this jet declaration makes general conclusion the allegations and the court was not abusing its discretion to say that because there was an even bargaining power that that that actually asserts this same agreement in its own complaint what they're doing is they're saying that there's a breach of the agreement they're asserting the publishing agreement and now in an attempt to get out of the form selection clause they are saying that the form selection clause is not valid or enforce and that just that that the district court had that in front of it and it doesn't make sense either the court the contract is not valid enforceable or it is and again it's important to know that the district court allowed for additional evidence to be put in here and it wasn't put in there is not an abuse appeared in perth and they've provided documentary evidence and they've provided eight all of that to the experts then the experts issued their decisions which they've already done and the parties get the opportunity to question their decisions or point out issues that they have with their position the parties have done that now they've gone back to the experts with those objections are or opinions as to why the expert opinions are right or wrong and the experts are really looking at the issues i believe they're at the point where the experts are almost done and are going to reissue their opinions and then all of that gets given to the judge in dubai and the court then books that what the experts have determined to get determination  they've questioned whether copyright claims fall within the scope of the form selection clause this court isn't specifically a pint on that issue but it has in the minetti ferro case held that contractual form selection clauses can apply to non contractual claims where resolution of the claims relates to the interpretation of the contract numerous district courts in the circuit apply the holding of minetti ferro to the copyright to copyright cases we've cited the gra technologies case out of the northern district history well and back this area out of the central districts and others additionally the th circuit has applied the analogous analogous oregon convenience doctrine to copyright cases that was done in the creative technology case where the th circuit recognized that simply because a case is a copyright case does not mean that the us district courts are granted exclusive jurisdiction over that case there are the court documentation to show the the figures of what was the big years of what had been allowed that was that was the subject matter of the threat and that was not produced that is my position raechel allegation in this report mr wright vault at least makes makes that statement he does not have any evidence to support it and he was given the opportunity to was not forced to and did not have to enter into this agreement he could have chosen not to enter into the agree met and terminate the agreement or stick with the old agreement until this agreement terminated it is and i didn't  or that it would terminate the agreement when i have the ability to do so so that's in front of the district or he would not feel threatened if he felt threatened and horrors he wouldn't have said in his complaint that they decided to honor the agreement and then so it's basically our contention that the claims here do fall within the claims of the complaint fall within the aurum selection clause basically all the claims  relate to the rights and duties that are set out in the publishing agreement they need to be decided by looking at whether the parties were in compliance with their contractual obligations and you can't separate the two out from one another we've already talked policy is that once the parties agreed to a quorum selection clause it should be maintained and kept in place