Absent fraud, duress, or other coercive factors, such an agreement precludes consenting defendants from later contesting personal jurisdiction unless they can clearly show that enforcement of the clause would be unreasonable. The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 15 (1972); see Mueller v. Sample, 93 P.3d 769, 772 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004) (“A contractual forum selection clause is prima facie valid and should be enforced unless unreasonable under the circumstances.”). “To the extent that parties have consented to personal jurisdiction in a certain forum, application of a forum state's long-arm statute and analysis of a party's contacts with the forum state are unnecessary.”

The Court of Appeals of New Mexico has recognized that the general rule on enforcement of forum selection clauses is that, "when venue is specified in a forum selection clause with mandatory or obligatory language, the clause will be enforced." Mueller v. Sample, 135 N.M. 748, 752, 93 P.3d 769, 773 (Ct. App. 2004) (citing K V Scientific Co. v. Bayerische Motoren WerkeAktiengesellschaft (K V Scientific Co. v. BMW), 314 F.3d 494, 499 (2002)). Although no New Mexico state court has more thoroughly discussed the enforcement of a forum selection clause, the District of New Mexico and United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit have more fully discussed the general rules regarding enforcement of forum selection clauses.

[4, 5] {6} "A contractual forum selection clause is prima facie valid and should be enforced unless unreasonable under the circumstances." Mueller v. Sample, 2004-NMCA-075, ¶ 8, 135 N.M. 748, 93 P.3d 769. Similarly, "when application of the law chosen by the parties offends New Mexico public policy, our courts may decline to enforce the choice-of-law provision and apply New Mexico law instead."

” Mueller v. Sample, 93 P.3d 769, 773 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004).

Relying on a case from the Tenth Circuit, the Court of Appeals of New Mexico has recognized that the general rule on enforcement of forum selection clauses is that, “when venue is specified in a forum selection clause with mandatory or obligatory language, the clause will be enforced.” Mueller v. Sample, 2004-NMCA-075, ¶ 11, 135 N.M. 748, 752, 93 P.3d 769, 773 (citing K & V Scientific Co., Inc. v. BMW, 314 F.3d at 499). The Court previously has concluded that, “although New Mexico has not addressed forum-selection clauses in particular, its decisions relating to choice-of-law provisions indicate that New Mexico would apply the same rule as the Tenth Circuit as well.”

Absent fraud, duress, or other coercive factors, such an agreement precludes consenting defendants from later contesting personal jurisdiction unless they can clearly show that enforcement of the clause would be unreasonable. The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 15 (1972); see also Mueller v. Sample, 93 P.3d 769, 772 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004) (“A contractual forum selection clause is prima facie valid and should be enforced unless unreasonable under the circumstances.”).

Both have adopted federal law governing venue-selection clauses, which should be applied to interpret the Contract Venue Provision ...."); Pl.'s Resp. 1, ECF No. 12 ("Plaintiff agrees with Defendant that there does not appear to be a conflict between New Mexico law and Puerto Rico as to the general principles regarding forum selection clauses."). See also Mueller v. Sample, 2004-NMCA-075, ¶ 10, 135 N.M. 748 (citing federal law regarding enforceability of forum selection clause). Consequently, the Court will apply federal law to determine the enforceability of the forum selection clause.

Relying on a case from the Tenth Circuit, the Court of Appeals of New Mexico has recognized that the general rule on enforcement of forum selection clauses is that, "when venue is specified in a forum selection clause with mandatory or obligatory language, the clause will be enforced." Mueller v. Sample, 2004–NMCA–075, ¶ 11, 135 N.M. 748, 93 P.3d 769, 773 (Ct.App.2004) (citing K & V Scientific Co., Inc. v. BMW, 314 F.3d at 499 ). The Court has previously found that, "although New Mexico has not addressed forum-selection clauses in particular, its decisions relating to choice-of-law provisions indicate that New Mexico would apply the same rule as the Tenth Circuit as well."

Relying on a case from the Tenth Circuit, the Court of Appeals of New Mexico has recognized that the general rule on enforcement of forum-selection clauses is that, "when venue is specified in a forum selection clause with mandatory or obligatory language, the clause will be enforced." Mueller v. Sample, 2004–NMCA–075, ¶ 11, 135 N.M. 748, 93 P.3d 769, 773 (Ct.App.2004) (citing K & V Scientific Co., Inc. v. BMW, 314 F.3d at 499 ). The Court has previously found that, "although New Mexico has not addressed forum-selection clauses in particular, its decisions relating to choice-of-law provisions indicate that New Mexico would apply the same rule as the Tenth Circuit as well."

The Court of Appeals of New Mexico has recognized that, relying on a case from the Tenth Circuit, the general rule on enforcement of forum-selection clauses is that, "when venue is specified in a forum selection clause with mandatory or obligatory language, the clause will be enforced." Mueller v. Sample, 135 N.M. 748, 752, 93 P.3d 769, 773 (Ct. App. 2004)(citing K & V Scientific Co., Inc. v. BMW, 314 F.3d at 499). The Court has previously found that, "although New Mexico has not addressed forum-selection clauses in particular, its decisions relating to choice-of-law provisions indicate that New Mexico would apply the same rule as the Tenth Circuit as well."