Home Furnishings Store, Ltd. v. Stiles Machinery, Inc. et al
Filing
38
ORDER & REASONS denying 35 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Eldon E. Fallon on 12/16/11. (ala, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
HOME FURNISHINGS STORE, LTD.
*
*
*
*
*
VERSUS
STILES MACHINERY, INC., ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 11-698
SECTION "L"(3)
ORDER & REASONS
Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Rec. Doc.
35) of the Court’s Order and Reasons of November 15, 2011 transferring this civil action to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan (Rec. Doc. 34). The Court has
reviewed the briefs and the applicable law and now issues this Order and Reasons.
This contract and redhibition case arises out of the sale of a piece of furniture
manufacturing equipment. Plaintiff Home Furnishings Stores, Inc., a Louisiana company,
purchased the machine from Defendant Stiles Machinery, Inc., a Michigan company. The
machine was manufactured by Defendant Brandt Kantentichnik GmbH, a German company.
The Sales Agreement included a forum-selection clause dictating that “[a]ny action arising out of
this contract may be brought only in a state or federal court sitting in the County of Kent, State
of Michigan.” (Rec. Doc. 20-2 at 2). Plaintiff filed suit in Civil District Court for the Parish of
Orleans against Stiles and Brandt, who removed to this Court.
Stiles and Brandt filed motions to dismiss or to transfer this action to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Michigan, relying largely on the forum-selection
1
clause. The Court found that the forum-selection clause was enforceable and that it was
appropriate under the circumstances to transfer the entire case to federal court in Michigan. The
case was transferred to the Western District of Michigan on November 15, 2011, as
demonstrated by the receipt of transfer dated November 15 filed into the record in this case.
(Rec. Doc. 36).
Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the Order and Reasons transferring the case.
Plaintiff states that it intends to dismiss Defendant Brandt from the action pending in Michigan
and file a second civil action in Louisiana against Brandt pursuing a redhibition claim.
According to Plaintiff, this judicially inefficient outcome can be avoided if the Court reconsiders
and reclaims the action for further proceedings in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
The Court lacks jurisdiction to reach the questionable merits of Plaintiff’s motion.
“Generally speaking, a district court relinquishes all jurisdiction over a case when it is
transferred to another district court.” Jones v. InfoCure Corp., 310 F.3d 529, 533 (7th Cir.
2002); see also Santiago-Lugo v. Tapia, 188 F. App’x 296, 297 (5th Cir. 2006); In re BrandName Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig., 264 F. Supp. 2d 1372, 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2003) (“From
the moment that the files are physically transferred to the receiving court, the sending court loses
all jurisdiction over the case.”). On November 15, 2011, the case was transferred electronically
to the Western District of Michigan; the transfer was completed essentially instantaneously
without the need for physical transmittal of any files or materials.1 (Rec. Doc. 36); Home
1
Perhaps, as one commentator has observed, “the better practice” would be “to stay the
effect of grants of transfer of venue routinely for a sufficient period to enable appellate review to
be sought.” 15 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice
and Procedure § 3846 (3d ed. 2007); see also Harper v. Am. Airlines, No. CV-08-S-2410-NE,
2009 WL 2524524, at *1 (N.D. Ala. June 12, 2009) (“The action was not immediately
2
Furnishings Store, Ltd. v. Stiles Machinery, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-01215-RJJ (W.D. Mich. filed Nov.
15, 2011). Plaintiff filed its motion on November 22, 2011, one week after the case was sent to
the Western District of Michigan. The transferee court now has jurisdiction over this civil
action, and the Court has no doubt it can ably determine the law applicable to Defendant Brandt
without the need for any duplicative litigation.
Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 16th day of December, 2011.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
transferred to the Clerk for the Northern District of Texas because in April of 2003, this district
adopted a policy of holding transfer papers in civil cases for ten days before transmitting a case
to another district.”). The question is academic because no stay was imposed here, either by
operation of a Local Rule or otherwise.
3
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?