All Heavy Movers De Mexico, S.A. De C.V. v. Armamex International, Inc.

S.D. Texas

All Heavy Movers De Mexico, S.A. De C.V. v. Armamex International, Inc.

DecidedJanuary 5, 2021

Docket1:20-cv-00058

StatusUnknown

This text of All Heavy Movers De Mexico, S.A. De C.V. v. Armamex International, Inc. (All Heavy Movers De Mexico, S.A. De C.V. v. Armamex International, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

All Heavy Movers De Mexico, S.A. De C.V. v. Armamex International, Inc., (S.D. Tex. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Souther District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT vanuary 06, 2021 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk BROWNSVILLE DIVISION ALL HEAVY MOVERS DE MEXICO, § S.A. DEC.V., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00058 ARMAMEX INTERNATIONAL, INC., : Defendant. § § ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court are the following: “Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation” (“R&R”) (Docket No. 19); Armamex International, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) “Motion to Dismiss Based on Forum Non Conveniens” (“MTD”) (Docket No. 15) and “Armamex International, Inc.’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation” (“Objections”) (Docket No. 20); All Heavy Movers De Mexico, S.A. de C.V.’s (“Plaintiff”) “All Heavy’s Response in Opposition to Armamex International, Inc.’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation” (Docket No. 21). After a de novo review of the record, the R&R is ADOPTED. Thus, Defendant’s MTD (Docket No. 15) is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff filed its Complaint alleging: (1) it transported equipment from Puebla, Mexico to Veracruz, Mexico, at Defendant’s request; (2) Defendant promised to pay for Plaintiff's moving services; (3) Defendant defaulted on its promise to pay; and, (4) Defendant was unjustly enriched as a result. Docket No 1. Defendant filed its MTD alleging the federal forum non conveniens doctrine required dismissal. Docket No. 15. The Magistrate’s R&R recommends denying Defendant’s MTD. Docket No. 19. Defendant objected to the R&R. Docket No. 21. Il. DISCUSSION When conducting a forum non conveniens analysis, the “ultimate inquiry” is to determine the forum where the “convenience of the parties and the ends of justice” will be best served. Syndicate 420 at Lloyd's London v. Early Am. Ins. Co., 796 F.2d 821, 827 (Sth Cir. 1986) (quoting Koster v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518, 527 (1947)). To obtain dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds, the movant must show: (1) an available, adequate alternative forum

exists; and, (2) the balance of relevant private and public interest factors dictates in favor of dismissal. Moreno v. LG Elecs., USA Inc., 800 F.3d 692, 696 (Sth Cir. 2015) (citing Vasquez v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 325 F.3d 665, 671 (5th Cir. 2003)). Defendant has the burden of proving all private and public factors weigh heavily on its: side to dismiss in favor of a foreign forum. Jn re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, La., 821 F2d. 1147, 1164 (Sth Cir. 1987) (emphasis added). Defendant contends translation of about 68 documents from Spanish to English is a sufficient burden to warrant dismissal and asserts that during discovery more documents will need translation. This case does not involve a challenge to services Plaintiff provided to Defendant. Docket No. 1. Thus, none of the public interest factors favor Defendant. Il. CONCLUSION The R&R is ADOPTED. Defendant’s MTD (Docket No. 15) is DENIED.

Signed on this * day of Sen , 2021.

Rolg#ido Ke Rag States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Souther District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT vanuary 06, 2021 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk BROWNSVILLE DIVISION ALL HEAVY MOVERS DE MEXICO, § S.A. DEC.V., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00058 ARMAMEX INTERNATIONAL, INC., : Defendant. § § ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court are the following: “Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation” (“R&R”) (Docket No. 19); Armamex International, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) “Motion to Dismiss Based on Forum Non Conveniens” (“MTD”) (Docket No. 15) and “Armamex International, Inc.’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation” (“Objections”) (Docket No. 20); All Heavy Movers De Mexico, S.A. de C.V.’s (“Plaintiff”) “All Heavy’s Response in Opposition to Armamex International, Inc.’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation” (Docket No. 21). After a de novo review of the record, the R&R is ADOPTED. Thus, Defendant’s MTD (Docket No. 15) is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff filed its Complaint alleging: (1) it transported equipment from Puebla, Mexico to Veracruz, Mexico, at Defendant’s request; (2) Defendant promised to pay for Plaintiff's moving services; (3) Defendant defaulted on its promise to pay; and, (4) Defendant was unjustly enriched as a result. Docket No 1. Defendant filed its MTD alleging the federal forum non conveniens doctrine required dismissal. Docket No. 15. The Magistrate’s R&R recommends denying Defendant’s MTD. Docket No. 19. Defendant objected to the R&R. Docket No. 21. Il. DISCUSSION When conducting a forum non conveniens analysis, the “ultimate inquiry” is to determine the forum where the “convenience of the parties and the ends of justice” will be best served. Syndicate 420 at Lloyd's London v. Early Am. Ins. Co., 796 F.2d 821, 827 (Sth Cir. 1986) (quoting Koster v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518, 527 (1947)). To obtain dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds, the movant must show: (1) an available, adequate alternative forum

exists; and, (2) the balance of relevant private and public interest factors dictates in favor of dismissal. Moreno v. LG Elecs., USA Inc., 800 F.3d 692, 696 (Sth Cir. 2015) (citing Vasquez v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 325 F.3d 665, 671 (5th Cir. 2003)). Defendant has the burden of proving all private and public factors weigh heavily on its: side to dismiss in favor of a foreign forum. Jn re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, La., 821 F2d. 1147, 1164 (Sth Cir. 1987) (emphasis added). Defendant contends translation of about 68 documents from Spanish to English is a sufficient burden to warrant dismissal and asserts that during discovery more documents will need translation. This case does not involve a challenge to services Plaintiff provided to Defendant. Docket No. 1. Thus, none of the public interest factors favor Defendant. Il. CONCLUSION The R&R is ADOPTED. Defendant’s MTD (Docket No. 15) is DENIED.

Signed on this * day of Sen , 2021.

Rolg#ido Ke Rag States District Judge

Syndicate 420 at Lloyd's London v. Early American Insurance Co. And World American Underwriters, Inc., Defendants v. E & O Underwriters of A.W. Knott Becker Scott Ltd., Defendants- Early American Insurance Co. v. Syndicate 420 at Lloyd's London and World American Underwriters, Inc. v. E & O Underwriters of A.W. Knott Becker Scott Ltd., Defendants

796 F.2d 821 (Fifth Circuit, 1986)

Rosa Saramiento Moreno v. LG Electronics, USA Inc.

800 F.3d 692 (Fifth Circuit, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

All Heavy Movers De Mexico, S.A. De C.V. v. Armamex International, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/all-heavy-movers-de-mexico-sa-de-cv-v-armamex-international-inc-txsd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack