Forum selection

Such clauses are subject to the four-part test articulated in Phillips v. Audio Active Limited, 494 F.3d 378 (2d Cir.2007). Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 225 W. Va. 128, 142, 690 S.E.2d 322, 336 (2009). The first inquiry is whether the clause was reasonably communicated to the party resisting enforcement.... The second step requires [classification of] the clause as mandatory or permissive, i.e., ... whether the parties are required to bring any dispute to the designated forum or [are] simply permitted to do so. [The third query] asks whether the claims and parties involved in the suit are subject to the forum selection clause.... If the [forum-selection] clause was communicated to the resisting party, has mandatory force and covers the claims and parties involved in the dispute, it is presumptively enforceable.... The fourth, and final, step is to ascertain whether the resisting party has rebutted the presumption of enforceability by making a sufficiently strong showing that “enforcement would be unreasonable [and] unjust, or that the clause was invalid for such reasons as fraud or overreaching.” Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 225 W. Va. 128, 142, 690 S.E.2d 322, 336 (2009) (citing Phillips v. Audio Active Limited, 494 F.3d 378, 383-84 (2d Cir.2007)).