K-Tex, LLC v. Cintas Corporation
693 F. App'x 406
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- K‑Tex sued Cintas in New York state court in Aug 2015 alleging breach of contract for unpaid goods (last transaction Dec 2010; complaint filed ~Aug 2015).
- Cintas was served in Dec 2015 and removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The New York federal court held a pre‑motion conference on Cintas’s request to transfer venue and transferred the case the same day to the Eastern District of Kentucky.
- In Kentucky, Cintas moved to dismiss under the statute of limitations; Cintas argued New York’s 4‑year limitations period applied and barred the suit; K‑Tex argued Kentucky’s 5‑year period applied.
- The Kentucky district court dismissed the case with prejudice, concluding the transfer was under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) so New York law (4‑year limit) controlled; K‑Tex appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the New York court abused its discretion in transferring the case | Transfer occurred without adequate notice or evidentiary basis | Transfer was proper given convenience of witnesses and locus of deliveries | Forfeited on appeal; not considered (K‑Tex failed to preserve challenge to transfer) |
| Whether transfer was under § 1404(a) or § 1406 | Transfer order didn’t specify statute; must be § 1406 (so transferee law applies) | Venue in SDNY was proper on removal; transfer therefore under § 1404(a) (transferor law applies) | Transfer was under § 1404(a); transferor (New York) law applies |
| Which state statute of limitations governs (New York 4 yrs v. Kentucky 5 yrs) | Kentucky law (5‑yr) should apply, making claim timely | New York law (4‑yr) governs because of § 1404(a); claim time‑barred | New York 4‑year statute governs; K‑Tex’s claims are time‑barred |
| Whether plaintiff’s alternative claims avoid the statute | Alternative theories (unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, account stated) are distinct and timely | All claims arise from nonpayment for goods and are governed by the UCC/NY CPLR 213(2) | All claims are substantively the same and subject to NY’s 4‑year limitations; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Durand v. Hanover Ins. Grp., Inc., 806 F.3d 367 (6th Cir.) (statute‑of‑limitations dismissal reviewed de novo)
- Miller v. Toyota Motor Corp., 554 F.3d 653 (6th Cir.) (objections to original transfer travel with the case record)
- Martin v. Stokes, 623 F.2d 469 (6th Cir.) (distinguishing § 1404(a) transfers from § 1406 transfers)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (U.S.) (§ 1404(a) requires transferee court to apply transferor forum law)
- Polizzi v. Cowles Magazines, Inc., 345 U.S. 663 (U.S.) (proper venue after removal is the federal district embracing the state court where action was pending)
- Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 29 (U.S.) (standard of review for transfer decisions)
- Blaha v. A.H. Robins & Co., 708 F.2d 238 (6th Cir.) (Erie doctrine requires federal courts in diversity apply state statutes of limitations)
- Blue Ash Dev., Inc. v. Polan, 74 F.3d 1240 (6th Cir.) (district court transfers are properly treated as § 1404(a) even if the order does not cite the statute)