Defendant's motion to stay is granted. CCP § § 410.30 and 418.10.

The parties' agreement is governed by a forum selection clause. A forum-selection clause is presumed to be valid and will be enforced unless the plaintiff can overcome the heavy burden of showing that enforcement would be unreasonable under the circumstances of the case. Lu v. Dryclean-U.S.A. of California, Inc. (1992) 11 Cal. App. 4th 1490, 1493. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the motion should be denied because (1) the alleged contract is unenforceable because fraud in the inducement negates the essential element of a meeting of the minds, (2) Plaintiff's causes of action are not covered by the clause and (3) Defendant has unreasonably delayed (3 years) in seeking to enforce the clause.

As to the alleged fraudulent inducement, Plaintiff alleges that before signing the agreement, Defendants falsely represented that they would provide Plaintiff with 10-12 viable leads per month in order to induce Plaintiff to