The plaintiffs' cargo on board the M/V Jaami was damaged when the vessel grounded during its voyage from Bangladesh to the United States. The defendants were the owner and operators of the M/V Jaami. The plaintiffs filed a claim against the defendants, seeking to recover for cargo damage. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the bill of lading that they issued to the plaintiffs contained a mandatory and exclusive foreign forum selection clause and that the appropriate forum should be a German or Japanese court. The plaintiffs argued that the forum selection clause was ambiguous and not mandatory. In addition, the plaintiffs argued that the enforcement of the forum selection clause would lessen the defendants' liability in violation of art 3.8 of COGSA/the Hague Rules because their claims would be time-barred in a German or Japanese court.

Held: Motion granted.

COGSA/the Hague Rules govern the rights and liabilities of the parties in this case.

Regarding the plaintiffs' first argument, a mandatory and exclusive foreign forum selection clause is presumptively valid and must be enforced absent a clear showing that is unreasonable or unjust. A forum selection clause is mandatory if jurisdiction and venue are specified with mandatory or exclusive language. After examining the forum selection clause that contained in the bill of lading, the Court found that it was mandatory, exclusive, and unambiguous.

Regarding the plaintiffs' second argument, the test for whether a foreign forum selection clause is valid under art 3.8 of COGSA/the Hague Rules is whether the substantive law to be applied by the chosen forum will reduce the carrier's obligations to the cargo owner below what COGSA/the Hague Rules guarantees. A statute of limitations clause does not relate to the substantive law applied by a foreign tribunal. Thus, a time bar in a foreign jurisdiction is not a basis for invalidating a forum selection clause.