Knecht v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc.
Filing
15
Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 12/22/17 granting defendant's motion to transfer the instant case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, for the reasons set forth in this order. (Related Doc. 7 ) (D,MA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
-----------------------------------------------------:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
DARYL KNECHT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THOR MOTOR COACH, INC.,
Defendant.
CASE NO. 1:17-cv-2374
OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Doc. 7]
-----------------------------------------------------JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Plaintiff Daryl Knecht sues Defendant Thor Motor Coach, Inc. (“Thor”) for alleged defects
in a motor home that Plaintiff purchased and that Defendant manufactured. With a motion,
Defendant Thor argues that a forum selection clause in its limited warranty requires Plaintiff to
litigate his claims in Indiana.
Accordingly, Defendant Thor moves to transfer this case to the Northern District of
Indiana, South Bend Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).1 For the following reasons, the
Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to transfer venue.
I. BACKGROUND
Around January 2017, Plaintiff purchased a motor home from a dealer. 2 Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant Thor manufactured and distributed the motor home.3
As part of his motor home purchase, Plaintiff signed a “Registration and Acknowledgment
of Receipt of Warranty and Product Information” (“Warranty Registration”). 4 In the Warranty
Registration, Plaintiff “received, read and agreed to the terms and conditions of Thor Motor
1
Doc. 7. Plaintiff opposes. Doc. 13. Defendant replied. Doc. 14.
Doc. 1-1 at ¶ 11.
3
Id. at ¶ 10.
4
Doc. 7-2.
2
Case No. 1:17-cv-2374
Gwin, J.
Coach’s 1 page Limited Warranty, published within its Owner’s Manual, and the Chassis Limited
Warranty.”5
The Owner’s Manual, in turn, contains a forum selection clause that states: “EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION FOR DECIDING LEGAL DISPUTES RELATING TO ALLEGED BREACH
OF WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATIONS OF ANY NATURE MUST BE FILED IN THE
COURTS WITHIN THE STATE OF MANUFACTURE, WHICH IS INDIANA.” 6
Plaintiff alleges that his motor home contains several malfunctions, defects, and problems.7
He brings claims under the Ohio Lemon Law, the Magnuson–Moss Act, and the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act (“CSPA”).8 He also brings a claim for tortious breach of warranty.9 For each
of these claims, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Thor breached express and/or implied warranties.10
Relying on the forum selection clause, Defendant Thor now moves to transfer venue to the
Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).11
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest
of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it
might have been brought.”
In a typical § 1404(a) motion that does not involve a forum selection clause, the Court
evaluates both the convenience of the parties and various public-interest considerations.12
5
Id.
Doc. 7-3 at 2, 7 (capitalization in original).
7
Doc. 1-1 at ¶¶ 2, 15.
8
Doc. 1-1.
9
Id.
10
Id. at ¶¶ 4, 7, 22, 28, 33, 37.
11
Doc. 7.
12
Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Texas, 134 S. Ct. 568, 581 (2013).
6
-2-
Case No. 1:17-cv-2374
Gwin, J.
“The calculus changes, however, when the parties’ contract contains a valid forumselection clause.”13 When a valid forum selection clause applies, it “[should be] given controlling
weight in all but the most exceptional cases.”14 When dealing with a valid forum selection clause,
the Supreme Court has held that district courts must adjust their usual § 1404(a) analysis in three
ways.15
First, “the plaintiff’s choice of forum merits no weight.”16 “As the party defying the forumselection clause, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that transfer to the forum for which
the parties bargained is unwarranted.”17 Second, district courts should not consider arguments
about the parties’ private interests, such as convenience of the parties and the witnesses.18 District
courts can only consider public-interest factors.19 Third, § 1404(a) transfer of venue will not “carry
with it the original venue’s choice-of-law rules—a factor that in some circumstances may affect
public-interest considerations.”20
III. ANALYSIS
The Court gives controlling weight to the forum selection clause, and thus transfers this
case to the Northern District of Indiana.
First, the forum selection clause is valid. The forum selection clause was incorporated by
reference into Plaintiff’s Warranty Registration, which was part of his motor home purchase
agreement.
13
Id.
Id. (quoting Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 33 (1988) (Kennedy, J., concurring)).
15
Id. at 581-83.
16
Id. at 581.
17
Id.
18
Id. at 582.
19
Id. Public-interest factors include “the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; the local interest
in having localized controversies decided at home; [and] the interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum
that is at home with the law.” Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241, n. 6 (1981) (quotations omitted).
20
Atl. Marine Const. Co., 134 S. Ct. at 582.
14
-3-
Case No. 1:17-cv-2374
Gwin, J.
“[I]ncorporation by reference is proper where the underlying contract makes clear
reference to a separate document, the identity of the separate document may be ascertained, and
incorporation of the document will not result in surprise or hardship.”21
Here, the Warranty Registration made clear reference to the Owner’s Manual. Moreover,
incorporation will not result in surprise or hardship. Plaintiff specifically signed the Warranty
Registration acknowledging he had read and reviewed the terms and conditions of the limited
warranty.
Other courts have similarly found terms and conditions contained in warranty documents
valid, where Plaintiff signed the warranty registration connected with a purchase agreement. 22
Plaintiff himself does not dispute the validity of the terms and conditions contained in Defendant
Thor’s limited warranty.23
Second, the forum selection clause applies to all of Plaintiff’s claims.
“The scope of a forum selection clause is a matter of contractual interpretation, and whether
a claim is ‘to be governed by forum selection provisions depends upon the intention of the parties
reflected in the wording of particular clauses and the facts of each case.’”24
Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. ISP Chemicals, Inc., 261 F. App’x 841, 848 (6th Cir. 2008)
(citation omitted).
22
See HRL Land or Sea Yachts v. Travel Supreme, Inc., No. 1:07-CV-945, 2009 WL 125845, at *6 (W.D. Mich. Jan.
16, 2009) (finding parties had agreement to arbitrate where plaintiff signed warranty registration that validated a
warranty, which in turn contained arbitration clause); Chaudoin v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc., No. 15-13871, 2017 WL
3485803, at *10-12 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 15, 2017) (finding limited warranty was valid where plaintiff signed
“Registration and Acknowledgment” of limited warranty); Messmer v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-1510J-JBT, 2017 WL 933138, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2017) (finding forum selection clause contained in limited warranty
found in Owner’s Manual was contractually valid, where Plaintiff signed “Registration and Acknowledgment” of
limited warranty, which referenced Owner’s Manual).
23
See Doc. 1-1 at ¶¶ 11, 13 (“Also as part of the deal, Thor Motor Coach agreed to warrant the vehicle to be free from
malfunctions and defects. . . . Plaintiff purchased the vehicle in reliance on the existence of a written warranty from
Thor Motor Coach.”); Doc. 13 at 1-2.
24
C. Thorrez Indus., Inc. v. LuK Transmissions Sys., LLC, No. 5:09-CV-01986, 2010 WL 1434326, at *5 (N.D. Ohio
Apr. 8, 2010); see also Traton News, LLC v. Traton Corp., 528 F. App’x 525, 529-30 (6th Cir. 2013) (finding that
Lanham Act claims concerning use of another website did not fall under the forum selection clause where the clause
specifically concerned claims about one specific website).
21
-4-
Case No. 1:17-cv-2374
Gwin, J.
Here, the forum selection clause specifically concerns “LEGAL DISPUTES RELATING
TO ALLEGED BREACH OF WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATIONS OF ANY NATURE.”25
Plaintiff’s fourth claim for tortious breach of warranty explicitly concerns Defendant’s breach of
warranty. And Plaintiff’s claims under the Ohio Lemon Law,26 the Magnuson–Moss Act,27 and
the CSPA28 all hinge on Defendant’s alleged breach of warranty. Therefore, all of Plaintiff’s
claims fall within the forum selection clause’s scope.
Because the forum selection clause is valid and applicable to all of Plaintiff’s claims, the
Court finds that it has controlling weight.
Plaintiff fails to meet his burden of showing that enforcement of the forum selection clause
is unwarranted. In arguing against enforcement, Plaintiff primarily relies on private-interest
factors, particularly the convenience of parties and witnesses.29 Because the Court cannot consider
such factors in this § 1404(a) analysis, Plaintiff’s argument loses.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to transfer venue.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: December 22, 2017
s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
Doc. 7-3 at 2, 7 (capitalization in original).
Plaintiff can sue a manufacturer under the Ohio Lemon Law, if the manufacturer fails to make repairs on a new
motor vehicle to conform the vehicle “to any applicable express warranty,” within one year of delivery or during the
first 18,000 miles, whichever comes first. See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.72(A); Iams v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.,
883 N.E.2d 466, 470 (Ohio 2007).
27
See Temple v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 133 F. App’x 254, 268 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Labonte v. Ford Motor Co.,
No. 74855, 1999 WL 809808, at *7 (Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 7, 1999)) (“Ultimately, the applicability of the Magnuson–
Moss Act is directly dependent [sic] upon a sustainable claim for breach of warranty.”).
28
See Boyle v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., No.2001–CA–81, 2002 WL 1881157, at *7 (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 16, 2002)
(finding CSPA violation occurred through Defendant’s breach of warranty).
29
Doc. 13 at 2.
26
-5-
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?