Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Group L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 124 S.Ct. 1920, 158 L.Ed.2d 866 (2004) (dismissing an action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction where jurisdictional defect, which had been cured prior to a jury verdict, was raised for first time on appeal). Allowing this strategy could result in a waste of judicial resources and allow defendants to “test the waters” of the plaintiffs chosen forum, before invoking their rights under the forum-selection clause. The use of such a strategy undermines the efficiency and convenience that we believe is gained from enforcement of forum-selection agreements. See M/S Bremen, 407 U.S. at 13-14, 92 S.Ct. 1907. Analyzing forum-selection clauses under Rule 12(b)(6) does not present the problems that analysis under 12(b)(1) would present. See Lipcon, 148 F.3d at 1290 (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, Supreme Court precedent 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing significant differences in text of state and federal equal protection clauses (B) holding that a forumselection clause may be enforced under rule 12b3 as a motion to dismiss on the basis of improper venue (C) holding that forumselection clauses are generally enforceable and a party attempting to show that such a clause should not be enforced bears a heavy burden (D) holding that consideration of forumselection clauses under rule 12b6 does not present significant doctrinal error (E) holding that motions to dismiss based on forumselection clause should be analyzed under rule 12b3
Output (English): recognizing significant differences in text of state and federal equal protection clauses