Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Truckaan Wale 22, Inc.

Filing 9

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 10/28/2016. (vdr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-7588 FMO (RAOx)

Title

Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America v. Truckaan Wale 22, Inc.

Present: The Honorable

Date

October 24, 2016

Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge

Vanessa Figueroa

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorney Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause re Forum non Conveniens

On October 12, 2016, plaintiff Travelers Property Casualty Company of America
(“Travelers” or “plaintiff”), individually and as subrogee of third party Coyote Logistics, LLC
(“Coyote” or “third party”), filed its Complaint against defendant Truckaan Wale 22, Inc.
(“Truckaan” or “defendant”) alleging: (1) liability under the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate
Commerce Act (“Carmack”), 49 U.S.C. § 14706; (2) indemnity under Carmack; and (3) contractual
indemnity. (See Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶¶ 9-21). Specifically, Travelers seeks indemnity against
Truckaan under the terms of a Broker-Carrier Agreement (Dkt. 1-1) between Coyote and
Truckaan. (See Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶ 7). Under that agreement, Coyote contracted with
Truckaan to ship a cargo of coconut water from New Jersey to California. (See id. at ¶ 4). That
cargo was destroyed when Truckaan’s truck and trailer caught fire prior to reaching its final
destination. (See id. at ¶ 6).
The Broker-Carrier Agreement contains a choice of forum provision, which provides that
“[a]ny legal action under or pursuant to this [Broker-Carrier] Agreement shall be brought and
maintained only in the courts of Cook County, Illinois or Fulton County, Georgia.” (Dkt. 1-1,
Broker-Carrier Agreement at § 11.N, ECF 16).
In determining forum non conveniens, a court typically must evaluate both the convenience
of the parties and various public-interest considerations, see Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S.
235, 241 n. 6, 102 S.Ct. 252, 258 n. 6 (1981) (listing factors relating to private and public
interests). “The calculus changes, however, when the parties’ contract contains a valid forumselection clause, which represents the parties’ agreement as to the most proper forum.” Atl.
Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 134 S.Ct. 568, 581 (2013) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “First, the plaintiff’s choice of forum merits no weight.” Id. Second, the court does not
consider the parties’ private interests, and instead considers only the public interest factors. See
id. at 582 (“[A] district court may consider arguments about public-interest factors only.”). Finally,
“plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that [dismissal or transfer] is unwarranted.” Id. at 581.
The public-interest factors a court must consider “include the administrative difficulties
flowing from court congestion; the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home;
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-7588 FMO (RAOx)

Date

Title

Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America v. Truckaan Wale 22, Inc.

October 24, 2016

and the interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law.” Atl.
Marine, 134 S.Ct. at 581 n. 6 (internal quotation marks omitted); In re: CytRx Corp. Stockholder
Derivative Litig., 2015 WL 9871275, *2 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (same). The public interest factors will
rarely limit transfer or dismissal, because “[i]n all but the most unusual cases, . . . the interest of
justice is served by holding parties to their bargain.” Atl. Marine, 134 S.Ct. at 582-83 (internal
quotation marks omitted). As such, “the practical result is that forum-selection clauses should
control except in unusual cases.” Id. at 582.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT no later than October 28, 2016, plaintiff
shall file a Response, not to exceed five (5) pages, addressing why this action should not be
transferred to the Northern District of Illinois or Northern District of Georgia. Should the court
transfer this action, plaintiff must specify whether the transfer should be to Illinois or Georgia.
Failure to respond to this order to show cause by the deadline set forth above shall be deemed
as consent to either: (1) the dismissal of the action without prejudice for failure to comply with a
court order, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct.
1386, 1388 (1962); or (2) the transfer of the instant action to the appropriate venue.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

vdr

Page 2 of 2