Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): noted, “do[es] not dictate the forum.” Id. at 535. Rather, the clause “should be enforced as a matter of contract law [which does] not [involve the] issue of proper venue.” Id. at 535. The Kerobo Court ultimately analyzed the enforceability of the forum-selection clause under 28 U.S.C. § 1404, which allows a district court to “transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” That particular statutory provision cannot govern the enforceability of the selection clause at issue here, as Heinz would have this Court believe, because the contractually agreed upon forum, Basel, Switzerland, is not within any United States district court. Royal Bed and Spring Co., Inc. v. Famossul Industria e Comercio de Moveis Ltda., 906 F.2d 45, 51 (1st Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Thus, upon first blush, there appears to be 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that phone and facsimile communications to the forum purchase orders and payments sent to the forum a choice of law clause within the contract regarding the forum state and delivery of the product within the forum state were not enough to satisfy minimum contacts (B) holding that title vii is subject to the transfer provisions of section 1404a (C) holding that the contracts clause article i section 10 clause 1 to the united states constitution does not apply to the actions of the federal government (D) holding that since we are dealing with a forumselection clause that refers to a forum outside of the united states and not within the scope of the statute section 1404a does not apply (E) holding that federal courts apply the forum states personal injury statute of limitations for section 1983 claims
Output (English): holding that title vii is subject to the transfer provisions of section 1404a