Opinion
Civ. 2:20-cv-01741-SU
11-06-2020
MADALYN I. SAHEB KHAN, KHALID SAHEB KHAN, Plaintiffs, v. JAYCO, INC., Defendant.
OPINION & ORDER
PATRICIA SULLIVAN United States Magistrate Judge
This breach-of-warranty case comes before the Court on Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Change of Transfer Venue. ECF No. 6. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED.
“‘[B]ecause a motion to transfer venue [pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)] does not address the merits of the case . . . it is a non-dispositive matter that is within the province of a magistrate judge's authority' under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).” Fox v. United States Government, Case No. 3:19-cv-00971-YY, 2019 WL 6493925, at *1 n.1 (D. Or. Dec. 3, 2019) (quoting Corrinet v. Burke, No. 6:11-cv-06416-TC, 2012 WL 1952658, at *6 (D. Or. April 30, 2012)).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs Madalyn I. Saheb Khan and Khalid Saheb Khan are Oregon residents. Compl. ¶ 1. ECF No. 1-1. In July 2019, Plaintiffs purchased a motorhome manufactured by Defendant Jayco, Inc. Id. at ¶ 4. Defendant is an Indiana corporation. Id. at ¶ 2. The motorhome manufacturer's warranty covered any repairs or replacements needed during the warranty period and/or due to defects in factory materials or workmanship. Id. at ¶ 7. The complaint alleges that Defendant breached the warranty. Id. at ¶¶ 8-16. The warranty contains a forum selection clause, which provides:
Exclusive jurisdiction for deciding legal disputes relating to an alleged breach of warranty or any representations, of any nature, must be filed in the courts within the state of the manufacture, which is Indiana. This limited warranty shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Indiana, unless prohibited by state law, all claims, controversies, and causes of action arising out of or relating to this limited warranty, shall be governed by the laws of the State of Indiana, including its statute of limitations, without giving effect to any conflict of law rule that would result in the application of the laws of a different jurisdiction.Houser Decl. Ex. 1, at 3. ECF No. 7-1.
This case was originally filed in Malheur County Circuit Court on September 4, 2020 and was removed to this Court on October 8, 2020. ECF No. 1. Pursuant to the forum selection clause of the warranty, Defendant now moves to transfer venue of this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. ECF No. 6.
A district court may transfer any civil action to any other district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which provides:
For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Consideration of a motion to transfer venue under § 1404(a) requires two findings. First, unless all parties consent, the court being asked to transfer venue must determine whether the transferee court is one in which the action originally might have been brought. Second, the court that is being asked to transfer venue must determine whether transfer is appropriate, considering the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interest of justice. See Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 1985).
Under § 1404(a), the district court has discretion to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness. A motion to transfer venue under § 1404(a) requires the court to weigh multiple factors in its determination whether transfer is appropriate in a particular case. For example, the court may consider: (1) the location whether the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) the state that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (4) the respective parties' contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts relating the plaintiff's cause of action in the chosen forum, (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) the ease of access to sources of proof. Additionally, the presence of a forum-selection clause is a significant factor in the court's § 1404(a) analysis. We also conclude that the relevant public policy of the forum state, if any, is at least as significant in the § 1404(a) balancing.Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks, footnotes, and citations omitted).
The ordinary analysis of a motion to transfer venue under § 1404(a) changes, however, when the parties have formed a contract that includes a valid forum-selection clause. Atl. Marine Const. Co. Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49, 62 (2013). A court must give a forum selection clause “controlling weight in all but the most exceptional cases.” Id. at 63 (citation and quotation marks omitted). The party seeking a forum other than the contractually agreed-upon forum bears the burden of should exceptional circumstances that render the selected forum inappropriate. Id. at 63-64. In evaluating whether a party has established that the agreed-upon forum is inappropriate, a court should refrain from “unnecessarily disrupt[ing] the parties' settled expectations.” Id. at 66. In addition, when the parties' agreement includes a forum-selection clause, a district court “should not consider arguments about the parties' private interests, ” and “must deem the private-interest factors [including inconvenience to the parties] to weigh entirely in favor of the preselected forum.” Id. at 64. In such a case, a district court may only consider arguments concerning public-interest factors, which will “rarely” support a forum other than the parties' contractually agreed-upon forum. Id. “In all but the most unusual cases, therefore, ‘the interest of justice' is served by holding parties to their bargain.” Id. at 66.
In this case, Plaintiffs might have brought this action in Indiana under either federal question or diversity jurisdiction. As noted above, the warranty includes a forum-selection clause designating Indiana as the agreed-upon forum. Defendant's motion is unopposed and so Plaintiffs have waived their burden of challenging the propriety of transfer by a showing of exceptional circumstances. The Court has considered all other factors and finds that a transfer of venue is appropriate in this case. Defendant's motion is therefore GRANTED.
CONCLUSION
Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue, ECF No. 6, is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. All other pending motions are DENIED as moot. After transfer has been effectuated, the Clerk shall CLOSE this case.
It is so ORDERED and DATED.