Opinion ID: 2811441
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Scope of the Forum Selection Clause

Text: As a preliminary matter, Carter's attempts to narrow the scope of the forum selection clause in two respects. First, Carter's states that Nike unilaterally included the forum selection clause in later invoices, and suggests that the forum selection clause should be limited to issues regarding the goods covered in each of these invoices. Second, Carter's argues that its Chapter 93A claim falls outside the scope of the forum selection clause. [I]t is the language of the forum selection clause itself that determines which claims fall within its scope. Rivera v. Centro Médico de Turabo, Inc., 575 F.3d 10, 19 (1st Cir. 2009). In this case, the language of the forum selection clause is unambiguously broad. The clause, if enforceable, applies to any action arising out of or in connection with the Agreement. (Emphasis added). The clause therefore applies to each of Carter's claims, including the Chapter 93A claim, since each arises out of or in connection with the Agreement and its termination. As relates to the Chapter 93A claim specifically, Carter's argument that the termination was an unfair business practice is clearly connect[ed] with the Agreement. Carter's citation to Jacobson v. Mailboxes Etc. U.S.A., Inc., 646 N.E.2d 741 (Mass. 1995) is inapposite since that case concerned a pre-contractual Chapter 93A claim, which fell outside the scope of a more narrowly worded forum selection clause. See id. at 744-46. -9- Carter's Chapter 93A claim, in contrast, arises from and is clearly connected with the termination of the Agreement itself. See, e.g., Huffington, 637 F.3d at 22 (1st Cir. 2011) (finding a Chapter 93A claim to be within the scope of a forum selection clause). To the extent that Carter's is arguing that the unilateral addition of the forum selection clause is not a valid part of its contract, we reject this argument as waived. Carter's has made no developed argument that the forum selection clause is an unenforceable addition under the U.C.C. Rather, this challenge is presented in a perfunctory and undeveloped manner, and thus, [is] considered waived. Matt v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 783 F.3d 368, 373 (1st Cir. 2015) (citing Rodríguez v. Municipality of San Juan, 659 F.3d 168, 175 (1st Cir. 2011); United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990)).4