Lewis et al v. Jayco, Inc. et al, No. 3:2018cv00100 - Document 42 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 8/12/19. (hnw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' S OFFICE U.S.DIST.COURT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Atli 12 2218 FOR THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF V IROINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION JUL . UDLEY C ERK BK SAN D RA G . LEW IS and W ESLEY S.LEW IS, Plaintiff, PUW CL K CivilAction No.3:18CV00100 M EM ORANDUM OPINION JA Y CO,IN C.,etal., By:Hon.Glen E.Conrad SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge Defendants. Thiscase arisesfrom the purchase ofan allegedly defective m otorhom e. The m otorhom e wasmanufacmredbyJayco,lnc.($&Jayco'')andsoldbyCnmpingW orldRV Sales,LLC (Camping W orld RV Sales''), an affiliate of Cnmping W orld, Inc.(collectively,Gtcamping W or1d''). Relying on the forum-selection clause contained in the lim ited warranty applicable to the m otorhom e,Jaycom ovedto transferthecasetotheN orthern DistrictofIndiana. Thecourtheld a hearing on the m otion on Jtme 27,2019. During the hearing,the plaintiffs opposed Jayco's m otion and alternatively requested that the courttransfer the case to the Eastern District of Virginia,based on the forum-selection clause in the ptlrchase agreem ent. Afterconsidering the parties'argllm entsandapplicablecaselaw,thecourtwillexerciseitsdiscretiontoerlforceonlyone ofthe com peting clauses. Speciscally,the courtwillenforce the fonzm-selection clause in the purchase agreem entand transfer a1lofthe plaintiffs'claims to the Eastern DistrictofVirginia. Lewis et al v. Jayco, Inc. et al Accordingly,Jayco's motion willbe denied and the plaintiffs'oralrequestto transfer willbe Doc. 42 granted. Backeround Plaintiffs Sandra G.and W esley S.Lewis reside in Albemarle Cotmty,Virginia. On M arch 17,2018,the plaintiffs wentto Cnm ping W orld RV Salçs in Ashland,Virginia to buy a Dockets.Justia.com motorhome for recreationaluse. They fotmd a 2018 Alante 31R Class A motorhome (the ''M otorhome'),whichwasbeingsoldbyJaycoandCampingW orld. Theplaintiffspurchasedthe M otorhome that same day. The M otorhome came with a limited warranty from Jayco (the çtimitedW arranty''land aseparatem ittenwarranty from themanufacttlrerofthechassis,Ford M otorCompany (çTord''). DuringthecotlrseofbuyingtheM otorhome,SandraLewissigned a ptlrchaseagreementwith Cnmping W orld RV Sales(the (Tlzrchase Agreemenf'),aswellasa warranty registration and custom erdeliveryform acknowledgingreceiptoftheLimited W anu ty. Priortopurchasing theM otorhome,thedefendantsand theiragentsmadeoraland m itten representationstotheplaintiffsindicatingthattheM otorhom ehadbeenproperlyinspectedpriorto delivery andthattheM otorhomewasfreefrom defects. CnmpingW orld RV Sales,lGacting asan agentfordefendantsJayco and CampingW orld,1nc.,''providedtheplaintiffswith aVirginiaState lnspection Certification forthe M otorhom e aspartofan effortto convince theplaintiffsthatthe M otorhomewasin good condition and inducethem to ptlrchase it. Compl.! 9,Dkt.No.1-1. Tie plaintiffs allege that the Virginia State lnspection Certification falsely stated that the M otorhome had satisfactory tires,and thatsuch defectwould have been discovered ifa proper inspection had actually been perform ed. W hile driving theM otorhom ethefollowing day,theplaintiffsççnoticed aloud ûclunldng' noisethatwasproducedaftergoingoveranybumpontheroad.'' Id.! 19. W hentheplaintiffs notified the defendants'agents aboutthe noise,the plaintiffs were falsely informed thatitwas norm alform otorhom esto m ake such sound while on the road. Relying on the representations m ade by the defendants'agents,theplaintiffsdid notseek to have the M otorhom e inspected br repaired. Overthenextfew months,the plaintiffscontinued to hearthesnm eloud noise. On July 24,2018,theplaintiffstook the M otorhometo ColonialAuto Center,alicensed Ford dealership. 2 ( ColonialAutoCenterinspectedtheM otorhomeand advisedtheplaintiffsthattttheleftfrontwheel wasrubbingthebodyofthemotorhome,therebycreatingasafetyissuethat(rendered)thevehicle unabletobedriven.'' J.tls!24. ColonialAutoCenteralsoinfonned theplaintiffsthatGûlayco's hydraulicstabilizerjack ...wasimproperly manufacturedand wascausing contactbetween the leafspring and thebody ofthe motorhom e,''and thatthe M otorhome wasSçincorrectly placed on thechassisand,becauseofthe stnlcturalissuesarising from thiserror,wastmsafeto drive.'' Id. In Septemberof2018,theplaintiffsfiledsuitagainstthedefendantsin theCircuitCourtof Albemarle Cotmty,asserting claims ofrescission,actualf' raud,and violations ofthe Virginia Consum erProtection Actand theM agnuson-M ossW arranty Act. The defendantsremoved the casetothiscourtinOctoberof2018. Upon removal,Jaycom ovedtotransferthecaseptlrsuantto the fonlm -selection clause contained in the Lim ited W arranty. That clause states,in pertinent part,asfollow s) EX CLU SIVE JU RISDICTION FOR DECID ING LEGA L D ISPU TES RELA TIN G TO ALLEGED BREA CH O F W ARM NAT UVN WM U STORBE ANY REPRESENTATIONS OF ANY FILED IN THE COU RTS W ITH IN Tlv STA TE O F M AN UFA CTU RE? W H ICH IS IN D IAN A . TH IS LIM ITED W ARRANTY SHALL BE INTERPRETED AND CON STRUED IN A C CO RDA N CE W ITH TH E LA W S OF TH E STATE OF IN DIAN A . A LL CLA IM SU C ON TRO VERSIES AN D CAU SES O F A CTION A RISFN G O UT OF OR IIELA TIN G TO THIS LIM ITED W A IG AN TY , W HETHER SOU ND IN G . CONTM CTTTORT OR STATUTV SHALL BE GOVERNED BY ETHE)LAW S OF THE STATE OF W DIANA .... Lim ited W arranty 22,Dkt.N o.1-1. Jayco's m otion w astaken under advisem entpending the com pletion of lim ited discovery relevantto the enforceability ofthe forum -selection clause in the Lim ited W arranty. The parties appeared forahearing on the m otion on Jtm e27,2019. D uring the hearing,theplaintiffsopposed Jayco'smotion and altem ativelyrequested thatthecourttransferthecasetotheEastern Districtof 3 Virginia based on the forllm-selection clause in the Purchase Agreem ent. Thatclause states,in pertinentpart,asfollow s: Any controversy,dispute orclaim arising outoforrelating to this Agreem entorbreach thereofshallbe interpreted underthe lawsof thestatein which Dealerislocated andvenuewillbeinthestateand county ip which Dealerislocated ortheapplicablefederalcourt. PurchaseAgreement! 15,Dkt.No.39-3. Thedealer,Cnmping W orld RV Sales,islocated in Ashland,Virginia,which is in Hanover County. HanoverCounty is in the Eastern Districtof V irginia. D iscussion A forum-selection clausem ay be enforced through am otion to transferunder28 U.S.C. j 1404(a). Atlantic M arineConstr.Co.v.United StatesDist.Court,571U.S.49,59 (2013). Section 1404(a)providesthatSçgflortheconvenienceofpartiesand witnesses,in theinterestof justice,adistrictcourtmaytransferanycivilactiontoanyotherdistrictordivisionwhereitmight havebeenbroughtortoanydistrictordivisiontowhich a1lpartieshaveconsented.'' 28U.S.C.j 1404(a). This statute Sttherefore provides a mechanism for enforcementof forum-selection clausesthatpointto apm icularfederaldistrict.''l AtlanticM arine,571U .S.at59. In Atlantic M arine, the Supreme Court addressed ççthe standards to be applied in adjudicating a j 1404(a)motion in acaseinvolving afomm-selection clause.'' Id.at52. The Coul' theldthatwhen partieshaveagreedto avalid fonlm -selection clause,çGadistrictcourtshould transferthe case tmlessextraordinary circum stancesllnrelated to the convenience oftheparties 1Jaycomovedtodismissortransferthecaseforimpropervenueunder28U.S.C.j1406(a)andFederalRule ofCivilProcedtlre1209(3). However,theAtlanticMarineCourtmadeclearthat:$aforum-selectionclausedoesnot rendervenueinacourtSwrong'orKimproper'withinthemeaningofj 1406(a)orRule1209(3).3' 571U.S.at59. Nordoessuchclausedepriveafederalcourtofsubjectmatterjurisdiction. SeeM/SBremenv.Zapataoff-shoreCo., 407U.S.1,12-13(1972). Instead,j1404(a)isthepropervehicleforenforcementofaforum-selectionclause. 1d. CourtshaverecognizedthatSçanypary and even thecoul'tsuasponte,can movefortransferofan action''underthis stamte. OneBeaconIns.Co.v.JNB StoraceTrailerRentalCorn.,312F.Supp.2d824,829(E.D.Va.2004);seealso Carverv.KnoxCtv.,8s7F. 2d 1287,1291(6thCir.1989)(observingthatj1404(a)çEdoesnotrequireamotion''and thatd<adistrictcourtmaytransferacasesuasponten). 4 clearly disfavoratransfer.'' ld. Although theCourtm adeclearthat,in mostcases,districtcourts mustenforcevalid forum -seléction clauses,ççthe Courtdid nothave' occasion to addresshow that generalrule should apply where ...,as here,there are other com plications such as com peting forum-selectionclauses.'' InreHowmedicaOsteonicsCorp.,867F.3d390,401(3dCir.2017). In cases involving competing fonlm -selection clauses,courtstypically have atleasttwo options:(1)severtheclaimsandenforcebothforum-selectionclauses;or(2)enforceonlyoneof the fomm-selection clauses. See In Rolls Royce Com.,775 F.3d 671,681 (5th Cir.2014) (observingthatAtlanticMarinedoesnotcategoricallyrequireseveranceina11situations);Primary ColorSys.Corp.v.AgfaCorn.,No.8:17-cv-00761,2017U.S.Dist.LEXIS 221512,at*16(C.D. Cal.July 13,2017)(explainingthat&tacourtmayrefusetoenforceafonzm-selectionclauseifthere are conflicting forum-selection clauses at issue'). In exercising its discretion to determine w hether to transfer the case in its entirety or sever certain parties or claim s, courts consider tçefficiency interestsin avoiding duplicative litigation''and sdany otherpublic intereststhatmay weigh againstenforcing a forum -selection clause.'' In reHom nedicaOsteonicsCop .,867 F.3d at405. Courtsalsoconsideritthenon-contractingparties'privateinterestsandanyprejudicethat aparticulartransferdecision would causewith respectto those interests.'' Id. Ultim ately,ifa courtççdetermines thatthe strong public interest in upholding the contracting parties' settled expectétions is roverwhelm ingly' outweighed by the countervailing interestsy''the court can declineto enforceavalidfonzm-selection clause. Id.(quotingAtlanticM arine,571U.S.at66). Applying these principles,the court tinds it appropriate to enforce only one of the forum -selection clausesimplicated in tiliscase. Forthe followingreasons,thecourtwillenforce the fonzm -selection clause in the Pm chase A greem ent and transfer the entire case to the Eastem DistrictofVirginia. 5 Asan initialmatter,thecourtnotesthatthePurchaseAgreement'sfom m -selection clause is both broad enough to encompass the cuzrentdispute and m andatory in nattlre. The clause extends to Sçgaqny controversy,dispute or claim arising out of or relating to''the Purchase Agreement,and mandates thattçvenue willbe in (Hanover Cotmty orthe Eastern Districtof Virginiaj.'' Plzrchase Agreement! 15. The United States CourtofAppeals forthe Fourth Circuithasrecognized thatthepvaseSGargisingqoutoforrelatgingqto''isabroad one,which is SGcapable ofan expansive reach,''Am .Recoverv Corp.v.Com puterized Therm alIm aainc.Inc.,96 F.3d 88,92 (4th Cir.2017). Theclause doesnotlimititsapplication to claimsofbreach of contractand instead çsembracesevery disputebetween thepartieshavinga significantrelationship to the contractregardlessofthelabelattached to the dispute.'' J.J.Ryan & Sons.Inc.v.lthone PoulencTextilesS.A.,863F.2d315,321(4th Cir.1988)9seealsoBartelsv.SaberHealthcareG1'p.. LLC,880 F.3d 668,678 (4th Cir.2018). Applying thisstandard,thecourthaslittlediffculty concluding thàtthe instantdispute is suffciently related to the Purchase Agreem entto bring it within the scopeofthe PtlrchaseA greement'sfonzm-selection clause. Theplaintiffsallege that theywerefraudulentlyinducedtopurchasetheM otorhom ebasedon falserepresentationsmadeby the defendants and their agents, and the plaintiffs speciscally seek to rescind the Purchase Agreement. Accordingly,itsfonzm -selection clauseclearly appliesto thisdispute. Asindicated above,theclausemandatesthatiçvenuewillbein (HanoverCounty orthe Eastern DistrictofVirginiaq.'' PlzrchaseAgreement! 15;seealsoJayco'sReply Br.in Supp.of Mot.toDismissorTransferCçReply Br.'')8,n.4,Dkt.No.40(notingthatççthefonzm selection clausein thePurchaseAgreem ent...requiresany claim to bem adeinthecolmty orfederalcourt wherethedealerislocated,''andthatthedealerin thiscaseçtislocated in Ashland,Virginiawhich isin HanoverCounty''). Becausevenue isspecisedwith tçmandatory orobligatory language,'' the clause is entitled to a presumption of enforceability. BAE Sys.Tech. Sol.& Servs.v. 6 RepublicofKorea'sDef.AcquisitionProgrnm Admin.,884F.3d463,470,472n.7(4thCir.2008) (internalquotation marksomitted). In theabsenceofany indicationthaterlforcementwouldbe tmreasonabletmderthe circtlm stances,the courtconcludesthatthe fonlm -selection clause in the PurchaseAgreem entisvalid and enforceable. The courtfurtherconcludesthatthe public interestsweigh in favorofonly enforcing the Purchase Agreem ent's forum-selection clause. The plaintiffs assertthe same causes ofaction againsteach defendant. Ifthe courtwere to enforce both forum - selection clausesk lmplicated in tltis case,the plaintiffs would have to litigate its claims againstJayco in Indiana and itsclaims againstCampingW orldin Virginia. çtpiecemeallitigation,such asthis,wouldresultinawasteof judicialandpartyresourcesy''Primary ColorSys.Cop .,2017U.S.Dist.LEXIS 221512,at*17, and' tGtransfonn an otherwise fairly routine ...dispute into m ultidistrictlitigation,''Artech Info. Sys..LLC v.ProTek Consulting,No.8:17cv-03468,2018U.S.Dist.LEXIS 124127,at*11(D. M d.July 25,2018). Although Jayco advocatesfortransferringtheentire caseto theNorthern DistrictofIndianatoElavoid duplicativeandpiecem eallitigation,''ReplyBr.11,m any,ifnotm ost, oftheprimaryoperativefacts,includingthesale oftheM otorhome,theoralrepresentationsm ade priorto the sale,and the production ofthe Virginia State Inspection Certification,occurred in Ashland,Virginia. In this context,courtshave recognized thatKçgtlhere is a localinterestin having localized disputes decided athom e.'' Prim arv Color Svs.Corp.,2017 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 221512,at*18;seealsoAtlar hticM adne,571U.S.at62 n.6. Forthesereasons,thecourtbelieves thatthepublicinterestfactorsweigh in favoroflitigatinga11oftheplaintiffs'claim sin theEastern D istrictofV irginia. Although Jayco was not a party to the Purchase Agreem ent,the courthas no reason to believethatitsprivateinterestswouldbetmdulyprejudicedby transfeningtheentirecasetothe Eastern D istrict of V irginia. Jayco is represented by the sam e ltichm ond,V irginia léw finn as Camping W orld,and the M otorhome was sold tk ough a Jayco dealerin that disd ct. In any event,thecourtisconvinced thatthepublic interestsdiscussed above- pm icularly,theinterests in efEciency and avoidingmultiplicity oflitigation- substnntially outweigh any burden imposed upon Jayco by litigating in the Eastem DistrictofVirginia and any countervailing interestin enforcingtheIndianafoplm -selectionclauseintheLinlitedW arranty. SeeInreRollsRoyce.775 F.3d at 679 (recognizing that Rthe need- rooted in the valued public interest in judicial econom y- to pursue the snme claims in a single action in a single court çarl trump a foram-selectionclauseq');ArtechInfo.Svs..LLC,2018U.S.Dist.LEXIS 124127,at*12(finding thatefikiency andthepublicinterestcounseled in favorofdecliningto enforceaforum-selection . clausethatonlyappliedtocertainparties). Conclusion Forthe reasons stated,the courtw illenforce the fonlm -selection clause in the Purchase Apeementandtansferal1oftheplaintiffs'claimstotlw Eastem DistrictofVizginimz Jayco's motiontodisM ssorkansferwillbedeniedandtheplaintiffs'altem ativerequesttokansferwillbe ranted. 'FheClerk isdirectedto send copiesofthismemorandllm opinion andtheaccompanying orderto a1lcotmselofrecord. DATED:Tllis 17 day ofAugust, 2019. SeniorU nited StatesD iskictJudge 2In lightofthisdecision,thecourtfmdsislmnecessarytoaddresstheplakdffs'challengestothevalidity of theLimitedW arranty'sfolum-selection clalzse. ' 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
