Kruger v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc. (CONSENT) ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARMEN KRUGER, No. 2:19-cv-0926-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TRANSFERRING VENUE 14 THOR MOTOR COACH, INC., and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Carmen Kruger filed the instant action in California state court, alleging two 18 causes of action for breach of warranty; Defendant Thor Motor Coach removed to this Court on 19 May 22, 2019.1 (See ECF No. 1.) On July 17, Defendant submitted a motion to change venue to 20 the Northern District of Indiana, citing to a forum selection clause. (ECF No. 11.) The matter 21 was set for a hearing on August 22 (the same day as the initial status conference). (Id.; ECF No. 22 10.) On August 7, the parties submitted a “stipulation by all parties” to change venue. (ECF No. 23 13.) Therein, the parties referred to Defendant’s earlier motion, and stated “Plaintiff reviewed 24 Defendant’s pending Motion and has consented to the transfer as requested.” (Id. at ¶¶ 2–3.) 25 Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in 26 the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division 27 1 The parties consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes 28 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF Nos. 7, 8.) 1 | where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have 2 | consented.” Forum selection clauses may be enforced through § 1404, and should be “given 3 | controlling weight in all but the most exceptional cases.” Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. 4 | Court for W. Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 60 (2013). 5 Defendant requests transfer of Plaintiff's warranty claims to the Northern District of 6 | Indiana. (ECF Nos. 13.) Defendant cites to a provision of Plaintiff's warranty, which states: 7 EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION FOR DECIDING LEGAL DISPUTES 8 RELATING TO ALLEGED BREACH OF WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATIONS OF ANY NATURE MUST BE FILED IN THE COURTS 9 WITHIN THE STATE OF MANUFACTURE, WHICH IS INDIANA. 10 | (See ECF No. 11-5 at p. 32.) Plaintiff did not respond to this motion, but instead signed on to a 11 | “Motion to Change Venue Stipulated by all Parties” filed by Defendant. (ECF No. 13.) Therein, 12 | Plaintiff asserts she “reviewed Defendant’s pending Motion and has consented to the transfer as 13 | requested.” (Id. at 4/3.) The Court construes this second “Motion to Change Venue” as a filing 14 | by Plaintiff consenting to the transfer. Without commenting on whether this action might have 15 | been brought in this district, the Court agrees with Defendant that because of the forum selection 16 | Clause, this action might have been brought in Indiana, and gives it controlling weight. Atl. 17 | Marine, 571 U.S. at 60. Further, the Court recognizes Defendant’s admission that Plaintiffs 18 | Song—Beverly claim is ripe for determination in Indiana, obviating the need to conduct an 19 | analysis as to whether this claim would suffer once transferred. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2] 1. The motion to transfer venue (ECF Nos. 11, 13) is taken under submission without 2 oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), and the hearing is VACATED; 23 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States 24 District Court for the Northern District of Indiana in South Bend; 25 3. The status conference set for 8/8/2019 is VACATED; and 26 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to administratively close the case in this district. 27 || Dated: August 9, 2019 28 FresiQ Norn . KENDALLJ_NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE