Aol, llc, mistakenly made public the personal information of 650,000 of its members. the members filed a suit in california, alleging violations of federal law and california state law. aol asked the court to dismiss the suit on the basis of a "forum-selection" clause in its member agreement that designates virginia courts as the place where member disputes will be tried. in deciding whether to dismiss the suit, the court in california first should look to sources of law, or sources that establish the law. 2. two important resources for the court in making this decision are the state and federal , which outline the powers, and limits to those powers, of the state and federal governments. 3. another resource for the court are the passed by the united states and the state . 4. if the court cannot find any sources of law that establish or direct their decision to dismiss the suit, the court should then turn to sources of law for guidance. 5. if the california court turns to prior court opinions to determine if it should dismiss the suit, it is looking for . 6. the system of prior court opinions is called . 7. under a decision of the united states supreme court, a forum-selection clause is unenforceable "if enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which suit is brought." california has declared in other cases that the aol clause contravenes a strong public policy. the california court will follow the decision of the united states supreme court because of the doctrine of and the united states supreme court decision is on the california courts. 8. because of the supreme court opinion and the prior california cases regarding clauses of this type, the california court enforce the clause in the contract. 9. because of the precedent set, the california court dismiss the suit and the case will be heard in . 10. what if the facts were different? what if the united states supreme court had not issued the prior opinion and california courts also had not decided that those clauses contravene a strong public policy? this case would be a case of in california. 11. without the prior guidance, the california courts likely would look to authorities to them reason through a decision.