Facts: The council, society and the cooperation of Lloyd’s is not regarded as an insurance company. It is regarded instead as a market place, wherein certain individual members gather to underwrite a particular type of business. In light of this, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b) (3) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure which the court granted the motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs’ next course of action was to now appeal arguing that the forum selection clauses deprive them of their rights and the Ohio securities laws and Ohio public policy outweigh the policies served by enforcing the forum selection clauses.
Procedure: The case was withdrawn from the Hamilton County of Commons, and was moved to the United States Magistrate Judge for deliberation. The Magistrate Judge upon hearing all the motions, verbal debates and numerous protests, ruled in favour of the defendants and dismissed the motion, stating that both parties had an agreement that involved the enforceable forum for selection provision.
Issues: The principal issue in this case is: Did the forum selection clauses used by the defendants, in any way deprive the plaintiffs of their rights or expose them to unfair treatments? And do the Ohio securities laws and public policy truly override the policies?
Holding: The court rejected the argument that was presented by the plaintiffs because it came to light that there were sufficient remedies in the English court and that nothing the English court stated was unfair or biased. Furthermore, the forum selected clauses used by the defendant did not deprive the plaintiffs of their rights.
Reasoning: The court brought to light the fact that a
