SHELL v. R.W. STURGE, LTD
United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit, June 8, 1995.
55 F. 3d 1227 (1195); 1995 FED App.0176P

FACTS Plaintiffs, West Shell, Jr., Andrew C. Hauch, III, and Herbert A. Middendorff also referred as the Names filed an diversity jurisdiction action against R.W. Sturge, LTD; the Council of Lloyd’s; the Society of Lloyd’s; and the Corporation of Lloyd’s; not considered an insurance company but rather a forum construed of members collaborating to fund certain classification of business. The diversity jurisdiction judgment will allow the Ohio District Court to exert their authority to hear the action as the Names are citizens of Ohio against defendant citizens of England (Legal Dictionary, 2013); on the grounds that the investment contracts that were entered into by the parties is in violation of the Ohio securities law and whereby seek to rescind the contract based on foreseeable loss to profits based on recent decrease of profits received. This motion is in direct contradiction of the forum selection agreement that was subsequently entered into by both parties, which gives the courts in England dominion; the Names expressed that such adherence to the forum selection agreement deprives of rights under the Ohio securities law (lawin.org, 2013).
PROCEDURE The matter was removed from the Hamilton County of Common and reallocated the matter to the United States Magistrate Judge. Who after hearing all evidence, verbal debate, protest, and motions by both plaintiffs and defendants; ruled on the side of the defendants’ whereby dismissing the motion noting that the agreement that both parties entered into entailed an enforceable forum selection provision (Leagle, Inc., 2012).
ISSUE Is the forum selection provision as set forth in the agreement, enforceable? Have the plaintiffs proved reasons to invalidate the forum selection?