Woods v. Claving Realty Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that several defendants had not made arguments for or against transfer and, without more information, the court could not determine whether the case could have been brought in the Southern District of New York
• finding the forum selection clause at issue was “ambiguous and thus cannot act as valid consent to jurisdiction in New Jersey”
• finding forum selection clause ambiguous where it stated an action may be brought in “specialized courts in Lebanon and the United States of America.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).