
    The RICE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, dba The Rice Company, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. GRAIN BOARD OF IRAQ, an Iraqi state company; Iraqi Ministry of Trade, an Iraqi state agency, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 09-17687.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted April 13, 2011.
    Filed May 2, 2011.
    Jay-Alien Eisen, Elizabeth N. Niemi, Jay-Alien Eisen Law Corp., Sacramento, CA, Adam C. Brown, Esquire, Brown and Associates, Fair Oaks, CA, Keith Dalen, Esquire, Hill Rivkins & Hayden LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Steven Miller Schneider, Esquire, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judge, and BLOCK, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

1. Paragraph 18 of the parties’ contract is necessarily mandatory and exclusive: A dispute that “shall be settled ... finally] and conclusive[ly]” by an Iraqi court cannot, as a matter of logic, be resolved by any other. Cf. The Bremen v. Zapata OffShore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 2, 20, 92 S.Ct. 1907, 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972).

2. Appellant failed to carry its “heavy burden of showing that trial in the chosen forum would be so difficult and inconvenient that [it] effectively would be denied a meaningful day in court.” Pelleport Investors, Inc. v. Budco Quality Theatres, Inc., 741 F.2d 273, 281 (9th Cir.1984); see also The Bremen, 407 U.S. at 16, 92 S.Ct. 1907 (“[W]here it can be said with reasonable assurance that at the time they entered the contract, the parties to a freely negotiated private international commercial agreement contemplated the claimed inconvenience, it is difficult to see why any such claim of inconvenience should be heard to render the forum clause unenforceable.”). Even taking the facts in the light most favorable to appellant, see Murphy v. Schneider Nat’l, Inc., 362 F.3d 1133, 1139 (9th Cir.2004), we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing Paragraph 18.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     