Soares v. Tiffin Motor Homes, Inc.

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 AMY SOARES, Case No. 1:24-cv-00484 JLT SAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 13 v. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE AND 14 TIFFIN MOTOR HOMES, INC., et al., TRANSFERRING ACTION TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 15 Defendants. (Docs. 8, 12) 16 17 Amy Soares seeks to hold RV Center and Tiffin Motor Homes liable for violations of the 18 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., and California state law. (Doc. 1.) 19 Tiffin Motor Homes seeks to transfer venue based on the forum selection clause in the 20 company’s express limited warranty. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. 21 The Court referred the motion to the assigned magistrate judge. (Doc. 9.) The magistrate 22 judge found Tiffin filed a copy of a limited warranty that “Plaintiff asserted she had read by 23 signing the purchase documents.” (Doc. 12 at 5.) The magistrate judge determined that “the 24 parties’ agreement included a valid Alabama forum-selection clause.” (Id.) The magistrate judge 25 also found “Plaintiff’s claims for breach of the implied and express warranties raised in this action 26 are encompassed by the parties’ agreement.” (Id.) The magistrate judge observed that Tiffin 27 “stipulates that the Alabama Court will apply California law to Plaintiff’s claims[,] eliminating 1 | at 7, citing Doc. 8 at 12.) Finally, the magistrate judge found that “by failing to oppose the 2 | motion for change of venue, Plaintiff has not shown that the public-interest factors 3 | overwhelmingly disfavor the agreed upon forum in the forum-selection clause, ...or met the high burden of demonstrating that the forum-selection clause is unreasonable or unenforceable.” (/d., 5 | internal quotation marks, citations omitted.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the 6 | motion to change venue be granted. (/d. at 8.) 7 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that 8 | any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 12 at 8.) The Court advised that “failure to file 9 | objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d., citing 10 | Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and 11 | the time to do so has passed. 12 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 13 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 14 | are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 15 1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. 12), filed September 30, 2024, is 16 ADOPTED in full. 17 2. Defendant’s unopposed motion to transfer venue (Doc. 8) is GRANTED. 18 3. This matter is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for Franklin 19 County, Alabama (the Northern District of Alabama). 20 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter. 21 IS SO ORDERED. 3| Dated: _October 16, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28