Taylor v. Jayco, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 STEVE TAYLOR, Case No.: 1:21-cv-01797-JLT-BAM 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 14 UNOPPOSED MOTIONS TO AMEND AND JAYCO, INC. AND DIXIE MOTORS, MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE 15 L.L.C., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 16 Defendant. (Docs. 12, 22) 17 18 INTRODUCTION 19 This case concerns the purchase by Plaintiff in July 2021 of a motorhome manufactured by 20 Entegra Coach, a division of Defendant Jayco, Inc. (See generally Doc. 1.) The transaction took place 21 at Great American RV Superstores, located in Hammond, Louisiana. (Id., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff is a citizen of 22 California; Jayco is an Indiana Corporation with its principal place of business in Indiana. (Id., ¶¶ 1– 23 2.) Plaintiff appears to bring claims for rescission and breach of warranty under Louisiana law, as well 24 as a claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §2301. (See generally id.) 25 Before the Court for decision are Defendant’s motion to transfer venue to the Northern District 26 of Indiana (Doc. 12) and Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. 22). Both motions are unopposed. 27 /// 28 /// 1 ANALYSIS 2 A. Motion to Change Venue 3 In its motion to change venue, Defendant points out that the purchase documents executed by 4 Plaintiff contain a “Warranty Registration and Consumer Delivery Form” as well as a “Limited 5 warranty Acknowledgement.” (See Doc. 14, Exs. B, C.)1 The Warranty Registration and Consumer 6 Delivery Form” required Plaintiff to certify that he received, read, and understood the Limited 7 Warranty applicable to the motorhome product prior to purchase. (Id., Ex. B.) Within the owner’s 8 manual that pertains to the motorhome in question is a section entitled “Warranty & Service” that 9 begins with the following forum selection clause: 10 EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION FOR DECIDING LEGAL DISPUTES RELATING TO ALLEGED BREACH OF WARRANTY, OR ANY 11 REPRESENTATIONS OF ANY NATURE, MUST BE FILED IN THE COURTS WITHIN THE STATE OF MANUFACTURE, WHICH IS 12 INDIANA. THIS LIMITED WARRANTY SHALL BE INTERPRETED AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE 13 STATE OF INDIANA. UNLESS PROHIBITED BY STATE LAW, ALL CLAIMS, CONSTROVERSIES, AND CAUSES OF ACTION ARISING 14 OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS LIMITED WARRANTY SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, 15 INCLUDING ITS STATUE OF LIMITATIONS, WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO ANY CONFLICT OF LAW RULE THAT WOUDL 16 RESULT IN THE APPLCIATION OF THE LAWS OF A DIFFERENT JURISDICTION. 17 18 (Id., Ex. D, ECF p. 39 of 45.) 19 “[A] forum-selection clause may be enforced by a motion to transfer under § 1404(a)…” Atl. 20 Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 52 (2013). In considering a 21 motion to change venue, “[t]he presence of a forum-selection clause…will be a significant factor that 22 figures centrally in the district court’s calculus.” Stewart Org. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) 23 (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)). A valid forum selection clause constitutes 24 the parties’ agreement as to the most proper forum. Atl. Marine, 571 U.S. at 63. Further, the 25 “enforcement of valid forum-selection clauses, bargained for by the parties, protects their legitimate 26 1 The Court may consider the documents offered by Defendants in the context of a motion for improper venue brought 27 under Rule 12(b)(3). See Munns v. Clinton, 822 F. Supp. 2d 1048, 1079 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (“Unlike a motion to dismiss for failure to state a viable claim under Rule 12(b)(6), on a motion for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3), the pleadings need 28 1 expectations and furthers vital interests of the justice system.” Stewart, 487 U.S. at 33. 2 Accordingly, when a section 1404(a) transfer motion is premised on a forum selection clause, 3 the analysis is adjusted and courts “should ordinarily transfer the case to the forum specified in that 4 clause. Only under extraordinary circumstances unrelated to the convenience of the parties should a 5 § 1404(a) motion be denied.” Atl. Marine, 571 U.S. at 62; see also Stewart, 487 U.S. at 33 6 (“[A]uthority and prerogative of the federal courts…should be exercised so that a valid forum- 7 selection clause is given controlling weight in all but the most exceptional cases.”). Finally, the 8 Supreme Court’s decision in M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972), “provides 9 guidance regarding the extraordinary circumstances in which a forum-selection clause will not 10 control,” including the presence of fraud or overreaching, public policy concerns, or grave difficulty 11 and inconvenience. Gemini Techs., Inc. v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 931 F.3d 911, 915, 917 (9th Cir. 12 2019). 13 For the reasons set forth in Defendant’s brief2 (Doc. 13), the Court finds transfer appropriate 14 under the circumstances. In sum, the transaction in question is subject to the mandatory forum 15 selection clause quoted above, which indicates that courts in Indiana have exclusive jurisdiction over 16 warranty-based and related disputes. Moreover, the record reveals no extraordinary circumstances, 17 such as fraud or inconvenience, that would justify finding that the forum selection clause does not 18 control. The motion to transfer venue is GRANTED. 19 B. Motion to Amend 20 Plaintiff has also moved to amend the complaint to add The Shyft Group USA, Inc. (“Shyft”) 21 as a defendant. Shyft is a South Dakota Corporation with its principal place of business in Michigan. 22 (Doc. 22-2, ¶ 3.) Although Plaintiff has indicated that the existing Defendant “consents to the filing of 23 this motion to amend,” the parties did not submit a stipulation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 24 Procedure 15(a)(2), which would have obviated the need for the court to address a noticed motion. 25 Regardless, Rule 15(a)(2) provides that the Court should “freely give leave” to amend when justice so 26 requires. In determining whether justice requires leave to amend, courts consider five factors initially 27 listed in Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962): “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing 28 1 || party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” 2 || Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). Nothing in the record indicates bad faith, 3 || undue delay, or futility, and Plaintiff has not previously amended the complaint. Moreover, given 4 || Plaintiff's representation that Defendant does not oppose amendment and the fact that the time for 5 || opposition has passed, nothing in the record suggests Defendant will be prejudiced by the amendmen 6 || Accordingly, the motion to amend will be granted. 7 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 8 For the reasons set forth above: 9 (1) Plaintiff's motion to amend (Doc. 22) is GRANTED. 10 (2) The Clerk of Court is directed to DOCKET the lodged first amended complaint (Doc. 11 22-2). 12 (3) Defendant’s motion to change venue (Doc. 12) is GRANTED. 13 (4) After the first amended complaint has been docketed, the Clerk of Court is directed to 14 TRANSFER this case to the Northern District of Indiana. 15 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _-May 27, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28