K-Tex, LLC v. Cintas Corporation
Filing
25
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER; Case was transferred pursuant to 28 USC 1404(a) this court must apply New York's four year statute of limitations to K-Tex's claims and it is clear that they are time barred. Accordingly granting 15 MOTION to Dismiss by Cintas Corporation and matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND STRICKEN from docket of this court Case Terminated.. Signed by Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr on 8/19/16.(SMT)cc: COR. Shrader, Pinter, Sabino via USMail
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION
ASHLAND
Civil Action No. 16-8-HRW
K-TEX,LLC,
v.
PLAINTIFF,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DEFENDANT.
CINTAS CORPORATION,
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs Complaint [Docket No. 15-1]. For the treasons set forth below, the Court finds that
Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and, as such,
dismissal is warranted.
I.
This case arises from an alleged contract between the parties. K-Tex contends that Cintas
purchased textile products, including among other things, aprons, towels, and fender covers from
K-Tex during the period June 2010 through December 2010. [Complaint, Docket No. 1, p.7-13].
K-Tex further alleges that Cintas agreed to pay a fixed price for the goods within 30 days upon
receipt of an invoice. Id. at if 5. K-Tex states that it delivered the goods that Cintas subsequently
failed to pay for the goods. Id. at
irir 7-9. Thus, K-Tex maintains that Cintas owes K-Tex over
$1,000,000.
Plaintiff originally filed this action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for
New York County. Defendant Cintas removed the case to the corresponding federal court in New
York and Judge Shira Scheindlin determined that Kentucky was a more convenient venue for the
parties and transferred the case to this District.
Defendant now seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs Complaint, arguing that the claims asserted
by plaintiff are time barred by the Uniform Commercial Code's four year statute of limitations.
II.
In its Complaint, K-Tex alleges that this case arises out of transactions and contracts for
the sale and purchase of goods between July and December 2010. Id at iJ 4. K-Tex also alleges
that payment was due within 30 days of purchase. Id. at iJ 5. Claims relating to the sale of
goods that arise under Article 2 of the UCC are subject to a four year statute of limitations. See
UCC § 2-725(1 ). At the very latest, the statute of limitations for the breach of contract claim
relating to the transaction or transactions that are alleged to have occurred in December 20 I 0
would have expired no later than January 2015. Yet, K-Tex did not file its Complaint until
August 2015. Therefore, Defendant asserts that K-Tex' s breach of contract claims are time
barred.
K-Tex argues that, under Kentucky law, pursuant to KRS § 413.120, the statute of
limitations is five years, and, as such, its claims against Cintas are timely.
The crux of the issue before this Court is which state's statute of limitations applies with
respect the claims alleged in the Complaint. Federal courts sitting in diversity generally apply the
law of the state in which they sit. However, there is an exception for cases transferred from one
federal district to another for convenience of the parties and witnesses under 28 U.S.C. §1404 (a).
Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court has held that when a case is transferred, the
transferee court must apply the law of the transferor forum. See Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S.
612 (1964). The Supreme Court further clarified that it does not matter whether the transfer was
2
initiated by the plaintiff or the defendant. Ferens v. John Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516, 524 (1990)
("we again conclude that the transferor law should apply regardless of who makes the §1404 (a)
motion"). Thus, the Supreme Court made clear that the transferor's "choice of law rule attaches
when and where the plaintiff files her complaint and then travels with the case." In re Dow
Corning Corp., 778 F.3d 545, 549(6th Cir. 2015) (emphasis added).
In this case, K-Tex originally filed this action in New York state court, and Cintas later
removed the action to federal court. Although Cintas was subject to personal jurisdiction in New
York, Cintas moved to transfer venue to this Court for the convenience of the parties and
witnesses, as this case involves the sale of goods to a Cintas distribution facility in this District.
Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New Yark issued an Order transferring this
case to this Court as a more convenient venue pursuant to § 1404(a). Accordingly, New York's
statute of limitations, in this case, four years, applies with respect to each of the claims alleged in
the Complaint.
As Defendant points out, there is a certain irony in K-Tex 's insistence that Kentucky law
applies. K-Tex instigated this lawsuit in New York, and now wishes to avoid application of
New York's statute oflimitations and take advantage of Kentucky's arguably more favorable
statute oflimitations. Unfortunately, K-Tex may not have its cake and eat it as well.
III.
As this case was transferred pursuant to 28 USC§ 1404(a), this Couti must apply New
Yark' s four year statute of limitations to K-Tex' s claims and it is clear that they are time barred.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Defendant Cintas Corporation's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs Complaint [Docket No. 15-1) be SUSTAINED and this matter DISMISSED WITH
3
PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the docket of this Court.
This~y of August, 2016.
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?