Carreon v. Nexus RVS LLC ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MARGARITA CARREON, No. 2:20-cv-00722-JAM-KJN 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE 12 NEXUS RVS, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 13 through 100, inclusive, 14 Defendants. 15 16 Margarita Carreon (“Plaintiff”) filed suit in the Superior 17 Court of Solano County against Nexus RVS, LLC, (“Defendant”) for 18 allegedly selling her a faulty vehicle. Not. of Removal, Exh. A, 19 Compl., ECF No. 1-1. Soon after, Defendant removed the suit to 20 this Court. Not. of Removal, ECF No. 1. 21 Defendant now moves to transfer this action to the Northern 22 District of Indiana pursuant to the written warranty from 23 Plaintiff’s car purchase. Mot., ECF No. 4-1, at 2. Plaintiff 24 Opposes. Opp’n, ECF No. 5. For the reasons set forth below, the 25 Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to transfer.1 26 27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 28 scheduled for June 2, 2020. 1 I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 On March 30, 2019, Plaintiff purchased a new Nexus Phantom 3 (the “RV”) from Cordelia RV Center in Fairfield, California. 4 Mot. at 2. Defendant, a limited liability company located and 5 incorporated in Elkhart, Indiana, manufactured the RV and 6 distributed it to Cordelia RV Center. Id. at 3. 7 Upon purchase of the RV, Defendant provided Plaintiff with a 8 written limited warranty that was effective at the time of sale. 9 Id. When the RV began to exhibit problems, Plaintiff took it for 10 warranty repairs in California. Opp’n at 1. As the problems 11 continued, Plaintiff decided to sue Defendant in California State 12 Court for: (1) breach of implied warranty, (2) breach of express 13 warranty, and (3) violation of the Uniform Commercial Code 14 (“UCC”). Compl. ¶¶ 9-28. 15 After removing the case to this Court, Defendant now seeks 16 to transfer this case pursuant the “Jurisdiction and Applicable 17 Law” clause in the limited warranty. Mot. at 3. This clause 18 provides in relevant part: 19 Exclusive Jurisdiction for deciding any claims, demands or causes of action for defects or representations of 20 any nature or damages due from such defects of representations shall be in the courts in the State of 21 Manufacture and Dealer, Indiana. The laws applicable to any litigation, dispute, mediation, arbitration or 22 any claim whatsoever arising from the sale, purchase, or use of the recreational vehicle shall be those of 23 the State of Manufacture and Dealer, Indiana. 24 Mot. at 3. 25 II. OPINION 26 A. Legal Standard 27 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may transfer a 28 civil action to another district for the convenience of the 1 parties and in the interest of justice. The district court can 2 transfer the action “to any district where venue is also proper 3 [] or to any other district to which the parties have agreed by 4 contract or stipulation.” Atlantic Marine Const. Co., Inc. v. 5 U.S. Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 59 6 (2013). Normally, the district court must also evaluate both 7 the private interests of the parties and public interest 8 considerations. Id. at 62. 9 But when the parties have agreed to a valid forum-selection 10 clause, the court should transfer the case to the forum 11 specified in that clause. Id. The forum clause should be given 12 “controlling weight” and should only be denied under 13 “extraordinary circumstances.” Id. The presence of a valid 14 forum-selection clause changes the usual Section 1404(a) 15 analysis in three ways. First, “the plaintiff’s choice of forum 16 merits no weight.” Id. at 63. Second, the court “should not 17 consider arguments about the parties’ private interests.” Id. 18 at 64. Finally, “when a party bound by forum-selection clause 19 flouts its contractual obligation and files suit in a different 20 forum,” the original venue’s choice-of-law rules will not 21 transfer to the new venue. Id. Plaintiff must therefore either 22 show that the clause is invalid or that “public interest 23 factors” make transfer inappropriate. Id. 24 B. Analysis 25 Defendant asks the Court to enforce the forum selection 26 clause by granting the motion to transfer venue to the Northern 27 District of Indiana. Mot. at 4. Plaintiff does not dispute the 28 validity of the forum selection clause. See Opp’n. Instead, 1 Plaintiff opposes the transfer of venue for the following two 2 reasons: (1) Defendant has failed to show Plaintiff’s California 3 statutory rights will be honored in Indiana, and (2) the forum 4 selection clause is unreasonable and unjust because it places an 5 undue burden on third party witnesses. Opp’n at 2-3. The Court 6 disagrees with Plaintiff. 7 First, Plaintiff mistakenly relies on state law. Plaintiff 8 argues that because her claims arise from California statutes, 9 “Defendant bears the burden of showing that these rights can be 10 enforced in the Northern District of Indiana.” Opp’n at 2. 11 Plaintiff relies on a California State Court of Appeals case for 12 this contention. See Verdugo v. Alliantgroup, L.P., 237 Cal. 13 App. 4th 141, 147 (2015). But “[f]ederal law governs the 14 validity of a forum selection clause.” TAAG Linhas Aeras de 15 Angola v. Transamerica Airlines, Inc.,915 F.2d 1351, 1353 (9th 16 Cir. 1990); see also O’Keeffe’s Inc. v. Access Information 17 Technologies Inc., No. 15-cv-03115-EMC, 2015 WL 6089418, at *4 18 n. 2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2015) (declining to apply Verdugo 19 because it “does not purport to apply [Section 1404(a)]”). And 20 in federal law, “forum selection clauses are prima facie valid 21 and should not be set aside unless the party challenging one can 22 ‘clearly show that enforcement would be unreasonable and 23 unjust.’” Id. (citing M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 24 U.S. 1, 15 (1972)). 25 Plaintiff attempts to argue the forum clause is in fact 26 “unreasonable and unjust” because “the majority of the witnesses 27 and other evidence are located in California.” Opp’n at 3. But 28 Plaintiff misapplies the relevant standards for what is 1 “unreasonable and unjust.” 2 A forum selection clause is unreasonable and unjust in 3 three situations: (1) where the clause was a result of fraud or 4 overreaching, (2) “if enforcement would contravene a strong 5 public policy of the forum in which suit is brought,” and (3) if 6 it is so inconvenient that it deprives a party of their day in 7 court. Bremen, 407 U.S. at 15-19. The “party challenging the 8 forum selection clause bears a ‘heavy burden’ of establishing 9 the existence of one of the aforementioned grounds for rejecting 10 enforcement.” Jones, 211 F.3d at 497. Plaintiff has not met 11 this heavy burden. 12 Plaintiff does not argue the clause was a result of fraud 13 or overreaching, nor does she argue it would contravene strong 14 public policy of the forum in which it is sought. See Opp’n. 15 And while she does argue transfer would be inconvenient, she 16 does not show it “will be so gravely difficult and inconvenient 17 that [she] will for all practical purposes be deprived of [her] 18 day in court.” Bremen, 407 U.S. at 18. The inconveniences 19 Plaintiff may suffer were “clearly foreseeably at the time of 20 contracting.” Id. Because Plaintiff has not shown the forum 21 clause is unreasonable or unjust, the clause should control. 22 Id. at 15. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for transfer of 23 venue is GRANTED. 24 III. ORDER 25 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS 26 Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue. 27 As a final matter, Defendant’s reply brief is seven pages 28 over the Court’s page limit. See Reply. On April 8, 2020, the WAU 2.20 □□ OVUIP CO VPAIVE INGIN MVUULLIOCIIL O PHWwu Vireviey Praye vviv 1 Court issued its Order re Filing Requirements limiting reply 2 memoranda, for motions other than those under Federal Rule of 3 Civil Procedure 56 and 65, to five pages. Order RE Filing Req. 4 (“Order”), ECF No. 2-2, at 1. As stated in the Order, the Court 5 does “not consider any arguments made past the page limit.” 6 Order at 1. Moreover, page limit violations result in monetary 7 sanctions against counsel in the amount of $50.00 per page. Id. 8 Defendant’s counsel must therefore send a check payable to the 9 | Clerk for the Eastern District of California for $350.00 no 10 later than seven days from the date of this order. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: July 17, 2020 13 he Me 14 teiren staves odermacr 7008 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28