Alliance Consulting Group, LLC v. SMICO Manufacturing Co., Inc.

Filing 31

ORDER granting 26 Motion to Change Venue. This case is transferred to the USDC for the Western District of Oklahoma. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 4/14/14. (RLW)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ALLIANCE CONSULTING
GROUP, LLC
v.
SMICO MANUFACTURING
CO., INC.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL NO.: 1:13CV274-HSO-RHW
DEFENDANT

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant SMICO Manufacturing Co., Inc.’s
Motion to Transfer Venue [26] filed on December 17, 2013. Plaintiff Alliance
Consulting Group, LLC has not filed a Response. Having considered the Motion,
Defendant’s Supplemental Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion to Transfer
Venue [28], the record, and relevant legal authorities, and in light of the Court’s
previous Order [23] entered with respect to the issue of venue, the Court is of the
opinion that Defendant’s Motion should be granted and this civil action should be
transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma.
This dispute centers on a contract between the parties, as more fully set forth
in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss [23] entered on November 6, 2013. Pursuant to that contract, Plaintiff and
Defendant agreed that
The State of Oklahoma courts shall have jurisdiction for all
disagreements as they pertain to payments, invoicing, manufacturing,
service, parts and delivery.
The buyer agrees to have said

1

disagreements heard in Oklahoma courts unless agreed to in writing
by an officer of SMICO Manufacturing Co. Inc.
Mot. to Dismiss for Improper Venue Ex. “A” [13-1]. The Court concluded that this
forum selection clause was mandatory and enforceable, but the proper procedural
vehicle for enforcing the clause was a motion to transfer venue rather than a motion
to dismiss. Mem. Op. and Order Denying Def.’s Mot. to Transfer Venue at 5-6. As a
result, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Id. at 6.
Defendant now moves to transfer venue to the Western District of Oklahoma
on the basis that the “public interest factors” point to the Western District of
Oklahoma and Plaintiff’s choice of forum bears no weight due to the existence of the
forum selection clause. Supplemental Mem. Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Transfer Venue
3-5 [28]. The Court finds that Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue is well-taken.
The Court thus concludes that Defendant’s Motion should be granted and that this
civil action should be transferred to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, for the reasons
stated herein and in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [23], the Motion to Transfer Venue [26] filed by
Defendant SMICO Manufacturing Co., Inc. is GRANTED.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is
TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma.

2

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 14th day of April, 2014.

s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3