United States District Court, D. Oregon, Eugene Division
OPINION AND ORDER
Aiken United States District Judge
Indar and Heidi Bhan filed a breach of contract action in
Lane County Circuit Court, an Oregon state court. Defendant
Nexus RVs, LLC removed the case to federal court and
subsequently moved to transfer venue to the Northern District
of Indiana. I heard oral argument on that motion on May 29,
2018. For the reasons set forth below, defendant's motion
August 2017, Plaintiffs decided to purchase "a 2018
Nexus Model 36 DS Motorhome" from defendant. Compl.
¶ 3. Plaintiffs arranged for an agent to travel to
Indiana, procure the motorhome, and drive it back to Oregon.
Plaintiffs never traveled to Indiana, and all communications
between plaintiffs and defendant took place through emails
and phone calls.
receipt of the motorhome, plaintiffs "determined
several, substantial non-conforming issues[.]"
Id. ¶ 4. Plaintiffs contend that the motorhome
was constructed on the wrong chassis and that, as a result,
the fuel tank, exhaust pipe, stairs, and other features are
deficient and create safety hazards. They identify several
other nonconforming features as well, including an allegedly
broken dining table, protruding bolts, and visible staples,
Plaintiffs immediately notified defendant of their objections
to the product. They also sent a letter from their attorney
"officially rejecting] acceptance" of the
motorhome. Id. ¶ 5.
subsequently filed a breach of contract action in Oregon
state couit, demanding restitution. Defendant removed the
case to federal court and now moves to transfer venue to the
Northern District of Indiana, where defendant is located.
district court may transfer a case to another district
"[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the
interest of justicef.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The
threshold question is whether the case may be
transferred to the requested district, an inquiry that hinges
on whether the action could have been brought originally in
the proposed transferee district. See Id.
(pennitting transfer "to any other district or division
where [the action] might have been brought originally").
The parties agree that this action could have been brought in
the Northern District of Indiana.
second question is whether the case should be
transferred. Courts answer that question according to an
"individualized, case-by-case consideration of
convenience and fairness." Stewart Org. v. Ricoh
Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988). In the Ninth Circuit,
(1) the location where the relevant agreements were
negotiated and executed, (2) the state that is most familiar
with the governing law, (3) the plaintiffs choice of forum,
(4) the respective parties' contacts with the forum, (5)
the contacts relating to the plaintiffs 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[.]"
Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc. 211 F.3d 495, 498-99
(9th Cir. 2000) (citing Stewart, 487 U.S. at 29 and
Lou v. Bekberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987)).
to transfer venue in this case requires a close
call. On balance, I conclude that this action is
best litigated in the District of Oregon.
Factors Weighing ...