Preferred Capital, Inc. v. Associates in Urology

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that defendant consented to personal jurisdiction in Ohio by agreeing to a nationwide forum-selection clause because defendant was “on notice practically from the inception of the agreements that any disputes would be litigated in Ohio.”
• enforcing forum selection clause against commercial entity, noting “it is not the [court’s] task to save [d]efendant from the consequences of an agreement it freely entered into”
• finding enforcement of forum selection clause proper where opposing party “produced no evidence which would indicate that [it] was fraudulently induced to enter into the forum selection clause”
• finding enforcement of forum selection clause proper where opposing party “produced no evidence which would indicate that [it] was fraudulently induced to enter into the forum selection clause”
• evaluating the motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2
• finding it “difficult to comprehend Defendant’s contention that the distance between Ohio and Pennsylvania would deprive Defendant of its day in court” because “Ohio and Pennsylvania are neighboring states” even if “Defendant may have to travel a few hours”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).