ULU Care LLC, et al. v. Luxury Lease Company

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: February 18, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02033
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 ULU Care LLC, et al., No. CV-25-02033-PHX-SHD

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Luxury Lease Company,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Defendant Luxury Lease Company’s (“Luxury”) 16 Motion to Dismiss Case for Forum Non Conveniens, (Doc. 9). Plaintiffs ULU Care LLC 17 and Ronnie Hale III (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), have responded, (Doc. 13), and Luxury 18 replied, (Doc. 14). For the reasons stated below, the motion will be granted. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiffs filed this case on June 11, 2025. (Doc. 1.) The Complaint alleges that 21 Ronnie Hale, “as owner/managing of ULU Care LLC entered into a contract with Luxury 22 Auto Lease for the lease of” three vehicles: a 2021 Ferrari 812 GTS Convertible, a 2021 23 Rolls-Royce Cullinan, and a 2022 Ferrari SF 90 Spider (the “Vehicles”). (Id. at 3–5.) The 24 vehicles were valued at $685,000, $440,000, and $930,000, respectively. (Id.) Plaintiffs 25 signed three Lease Agreements that detailed the terms of the leases, including monthly 26 payments totaling well over $30,000. (Id.) 27 Plaintiffs allege that, in August 2023, Luxury demanded return of all three vehicles 28 even though “Plaintiffs were in full compliance under all the terms of all Contracts.” (Id. 1 at ¶ 47.) It appears that Luxury eventually took possession of the vehicles, though no 2 specific allegation is made to that effect. (See generally Doc. 1.) Plaintiffs bring five 3 claims against Luxury under Arizona law: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Implied 4 Warranty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Replevin, under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1301; 5 (4) Conversion; and (5) Unjust Enrichment/Quantum Meruit. (Id. at 8–11.) 6 Each of Plaintiffs’ claims stem from the Lease Agreements governing Plaintiffs’ 7 lease of the Vehicles. The parties agree that the Lease Agreements contained the following 8 provision regarding forum selection: 9 In the event that any claim or dispute between Lessee and Lessor over the terms of this Lease or any Guaranty of the 10 Lease is not arbitrated under paragraph number 32 hereof, I agree that non-exclusive jurisdiction and venue for such claims 11 shall exist in the state courts located in Bergen County, New Jersey and the United States District Court for the District of 12 New Jersey. I further agree and acknowledge that I may not sue Luxury Lease Partners in any jurisdiction or venue except 13 Bergen County, New Jersey or the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. As evidenced by my signature 14 below, subject to the arbitration provisions, I submit to the personal jurisdiction and venue of the state court in Bergen 15 Count New Jersey and Federal District Court in New Jersey, and agree that any and all claims or disputes pertaining to the 16 Lease or Guaranty or to any matter arising out of or related to this Lease or Guaranty, which are initiated by me against you, 17 to the extent, if any, that such claims or disputes are not subject to the provisions noted in the arbitration provision below, shall 18 be brought in the state or federal courts located in Bergen County New Jersey and/or District of New Jersey. Further, I 19 expressly consent to the jurisdiction and venue of the state court of Bergen County New Jersey and Federal District Court 20 of New Jersey, as to any legal or equitable action that may be brought in such court by you, and waive any objection based 21 on lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, or forum non conveniens with respect to any such action. I also acknowledge 22 and agree that you reserve the right to initiate and prosecute any action against me in any court of competent jurisdiction, 23 and I consent to such forum that you may elect. 24 (Doc. 9 at 27, 47, 67; Doc. 13 at 4.)1 25 On August 20, 2025, Luxury filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for forum 26 non conveniens. (Doc. 13.) The deadline to respond to the motion was September 3, 2025, 27 1 Luxury attached the three Lease Agreements at issue to its Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 28 9 at 10–70.) Courts may consider evidence outside the pleadings on a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. Doe 1 v. AOL, LLC, 552 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2009). 1 two weeks after the motion was filed. See LRCiv. 7.2(c). On September 3, Plaintiffs filed 2 a Motion for Ten Business Days to File Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, 3 requesting a new deadline of September 17, 2025. (Doc. 10.) The Court denied the motion 4 because Plaintiffs did not comply with Local Rule 7.3(b), which requires any party moving 5 for an extension of time to “state the position of each other party,” or if unable to reach the 6 other party, to include “a statement to that effect in” in the motion for an extension. The 7 Court noted that Plaintiffs could refile their request for an extension if they complied with 8 the Local Rules, (Doc. 11), but Plaintiffs did not refile. 9 On September 22, 2025—19 days after their Response was due, and five days after 10 the deadline they proposed in their request for an extension—Plaintiffs responded to 11 Luxury’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiffs did not seek leave of the Court to file 12 their Response out of time. (See id.) 13 On September 29, 2025, Luxury timely replied. (Doc. 14.) Luxury argues that 14 (1) Plaintiffs’ response should be disregarded and the motion summarily granted pursuant 15 to Local Rule 7.2(i); and (2) on the merits, the Court should enforce the forum selection 16 clause contained in the parties’ Lease Agreements. 17 II. LEGAL STANDARD 18 “[T]he appropriate way to enforce a forum-selection clause pointing to a state or 19 foreign forum is through the doctrine of forum non conveniens.” Atl. Marine Conts. Co. v. 20 U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 60 (2013). Typically, the forum non 21 conveniens analysis requires courts to analyze certain private and public factors to 22 determine the appropriate forum. Id. at 62–63. But when “the parties’ contract contains a 23 valid forum selection clause . . . [it] should be given controlling weight except in the most 24 exceptional cases.” Id. at 63. As a result, courts may only consider the public interest 25 factors when a valid forum selection clause exists. Id. at 64. “Because those factors will 26 rarely defeat a transfer motion, the practical result is that forum-selection clauses should 27 control except in unusual cases.” Id. 28 “Forum selection clauses are presumed valid and should be enforced unless doing 1 so clearly would be unreasonable and unjust, or the clause was invalid for such reasons as 2 fraud or overreaching.” Aquaquim SA de CV v. Env't Fluids Inc., 667 F. Supp. 3d 1003, 3 1007 (D. Ariz. 2023) (quotation marks omitted). “Well-established judicial policy favors 4 the enforcement of forum selection clauses as representations of the parties’ bargaining and 5 mutual expectations” and the plaintiff “bears the heavy burden to show why the court 6 should not enforce the forum selection clause.” Id. (cleaned up). 7 III. DISCUSSION 8 A. Failure to Comply with Local Rules 9 Under Local Rule 7.2(i), the Court may summarily grant any motion that “does not 10 conform in all substantial respects with the requirements” of the Local Rules, including the 11 failure to timely respond to motions. Plaintiffs did not respond to Luxury’s motion to 12 dismiss by the September 3, 2025 deadline. Instead, they requested an extension, which 13 the Court denied without prejudice for failure to comply with the Local Rules. Rather than 14 file a motion for an extension that complied with the Local Rules, Plaintiffs ignored the 15 Court’s order and filed a Response nearly three weeks after the deadline. They did not 16 request leave to file out of time or acknowledge the Court’s order denying their request for 17 an extension. In short, Plaintiffs filed their Response in contravention of the Local Rules 18 and the Court’s orders. It is thus well within the Court’s discretion to grant Luxury’s 19 motion summarily, for failure to comply with the Local Rules. 20 B. Forum Non Conveniens 21 Because the merits of this case also warrant dismissal, they will be briefly addressed. 22 The parties’ Lease Agreements contain a forum selection clause. (See Doc. 9 at 27, 47, 23 67.) The Court therefore presumes the clause is valid, and Plaintiffs must demonstrate why 24 enforcing the clause would be “unreasonable and unjust,” or that the clause is “invalid for 25 such reasons as fraud or overreaching.” Aquaquim, 667 F. Supp. at 1007 (cleaned up). 26 Plaintiffs first argue that the forum selection clause is “illusory, unconscionable, 27 non-mandatory and thus non-enforceable,” because it initially states that “non-exclusive 28 jurisdiction and venue . . . shall exist in the state Courts of Bergen County, New Jersey and 1 the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.” (Doc. 13 at 6.) Plaintiffs 2 are correct that this sentence does not limit the courts in which they may file suit. The next 3 sentence, however, does: “I further agree and acknowledge that I may not sue Luxury Lease 4 Partners in any jurisdiction or venue except Bergen County, New Jersey or the United 5 States District Court for the District of New Jersey.” (Id.) 6 Plaintiffs seem to argue that these statements—that jurisdiction is “non-exclusive” 7 on one hand, and limited to courts in New Jersey, on the other—are contradictory or render 8 the forum selection clause ambiguous. (See id. at 6.) But the two sentences are consistent 9 with the scheme set up by the forum selection clause. Unlike Plaintiffs, Luxury did not 10 give up its right to bring suit in any court of competent jurisdiction. To the contrary, the 11 parties’ agreement explicitly “reserves [to Luxury] the right to initiate and prosecute any 12 action against [Plaintiffs] in any court of competent jurisdiction.” (Doc. 9 at 27, 47, 67.) 13 Thus, jurisdiction in New Jersey is “non-exclusive” only as to Luxury, which may sue 14 Plaintiffs in any court with jurisdiction. 15 Plaintiffs next argue that the forum selection clause is “non-exclusive, permissive, 16 and unconscionable” because it is one sided: it allows Luxury to bring a claim against 17 Plaintiffs in any court with jurisdiction but prohibits Plaintiffs from bringing suit anywhere 18 but New Jersey. (Doc. 13 at 6.) Courts in this District have enforced similar one-sided 19 forum selection clauses. See e.g., Desert Autosports LLC v. Auto. Fin. Corp., 2013 WL 20 4231151, at *1 (D. Ariz. 2013) (enforcing a one-sided forum selection clause when the 21 Plaintiffs did not provide any authority or “evidence that the clause was the result of fraud 22 or overreaching”). And Plaintiffs cite no authority for the proposition that a one-sided 23 forum selection clause is unconscionable. (See Doc. 13 at 9–11 (citing cases regarding 24 unilateral arbitration clauses, but no cases addressing forum selection clauses).) 25 Next, Plaintiffs argue that the arbitration clause in the Lease Agreements is 26 unenforceable. This argument is largely irrelevant. Luxury seeks to enforce the forum 27 selection clause, not the arbitration clause. Thus, the arbitration clause is not before the 28 Court. To the extent Plaintiffs argue that the alleged unconscionability of the arbitration 1 clause renders the forum selection clause unenforceable, this argument is precluded by the 2 plain language of the Lease Agreements. The forum selection clause begins with the 3 phrase, “[i]n the event that any claim or dispute between Lessee and Lessor over the terms 4 of this Lease or any Guaranty of the Lease is not arbitrated under paragraph number 32 5 hereof,” and then details the fate of claims not arbitrated—namely that Plaintiffs must bring 6 them in New Jersey, and Luxury may bring them in any court with jurisdiction. (Doc. 9 at 7 27, 47, 67.) If, as Plaintiffs assert, the arbitration clause is unenforceable, then their claims 8 cannot be “arbitrated under paragraph number 32” of the Lease Agreements, and the forum 9 selection clause is triggered. Thus, Plaintiffs’ contention that the arbitration clause is 10 unenforceable and that their claims are therefore, not arbitrable, all but guarantees that their 11 claims belong in New Jersey, not Arizona. 12 Next, Plaintiffs argue that because the forum selection clause points to both a state 13 and federal forum, the proper avenue for relief is a 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) motion to transfer. 14 However, when a forum selection clause points to both a state and federal forum, dismissal 15 for forum non conveniens, rather than transfer under § 1404(a), is appropriate. MJT Water 16 Tech., LLC v. First Fed. Bank, 2024 WL 5424411, at *13–14 (C.D. Cal. 2024) (“Because 17 the forum selection clause points to a state as well as a federal forum, the court analyses 18 the forum selection clause using forum non conveniens.”). Plaintiffs have a choice between 19 filing their claim in state court in Bergen County, New Jersey, or in federal court in the 20 District of New Jersey; dismissal will allow Plaintiffs to make this decision, and refile in 21 the court of their choice. 22 Plaintiffs cite Atlantic Marine, 571 U.S. 49 (2013) and Simonoff v. Expedia, Inc., 23 643 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011) to support their position that a § 1404(a) motion is the 24 correct avenue for relief. (Doc. 13 at 12–13.) But Atlantic Marine held that § 1404(a) only 25 applies to “the subset of cases in which the transferee forum is within the federal court 26 system.” 571 U.S. at 580. Here, it is not the case that the “transferee forum is within the 27 federal court system” as Plaintiffs can bring their claims in either state or federal court. 28 Accordingly, this case is not among “the subset of cases” to which § 1404(a) applies. 1 || Plaintiffs’ citation to Simonoff is also inapposite. Simonoff simply interpreted a forum selection clause to determine whether the case could be brought in federal court. 643 F.3d || at 1207 (holding that “[t]he district court did not err in declining to remand the case to state court” because “a forum selection clause that vests ‘exclusive jurisdiction and venue’ in 5 || the courts ‘in’ a county provides venue in the state and federal courts located in that 6|| county”). It says nothing of § 1404(a) or the doctrine of forum non conveniens. See id. 7 Finally, Plaintiffs attach the declaration of Robbie Hale, which states that he 8 || “electronically sign[ed] the contracts,” which were presented to him “in fine print” “on a 9 || computer screen,” and that had he “been aware that [he] would be required to litigate. . . in || New Jersey, [he] would not have entered into the contracts.” (Doc. 13-1 at 2.) Plaintiffs 11 |} make no argument that Luxury engaged in fraud or coercion, stating only that “Ronnie was || presented with the Contracts under circumstances which precluded reading or 13} comprehending the Forum Selection and Arbitration Clauses.” (Doc. 13 at 11.) This is 14]| insufficient to prevent enforcement of the forum selection clause. “[S]imply alleging that 15 || one was duped into signing the contract 1s not enough; to escape a forum selection clause || onthe grounds of fraud, a party must show that ‘the inclusion of that clause in the contract || was the product of fraud or coercion.’” Modius, Inc. v. Psinaptic, Inc., 2006 WL 1156390 18 || at *6 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (quoting Richards v. Lloyd’s of London, 135 F.3d 1289, 1297 (9th Cir. 1998)). 20 In sum, Plaintiffs have not carried the “heavy burden to show why the court should not enforce the forum selection clause.” Aguaquim, 667 F. Supp. at 1007 (cleaned up). 22 Accordingly, 23 IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant Luxury Lease Company’s Motion to Dismiss 24 || for Forum Non Conveniens. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly || and close this case. 26 Dated this 18th day of February, 2026. □

28 H le Sharad H. Desai United States District Judge -7-