Parks v. Newmar Corporation, 3:19-cv-00352

Patrick and Kim Parks purchased a 2018 Newmar Baystar motorhome in Virginia in Dec. 2017; purchase price about $122,000.
Motorhome allegedly developed multiple defects; returned for service at least three times and was reportedly out of service ~45 days; Parks allege breach of factory warranty and a Magnuson-Moss claim and seek, among other relief, a refund.
The factory warranty contains an exclusive forum-selection clause: state or federal courts located in Indiana have exclusive jurisdiction over warranty disputes.
Newmar (an Indiana citizen) removed the action to federal court (E.D. Va.) and moved to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the N.D. of Indiana, South Bend Division under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
The court held an evidentiary hearing; Parks testified transfer would impose travel, expense, and work-time burdens but did not show "grave inconvenience." Newmar offered to bring the motorhome to Indiana for warranty-related work.
Applying federal law and the Atlantic Marine framework, the court found the forum-selection clause valid and granted Newmar’s motion to transfer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of forum-selection clause	Clause is invalid/unreasonable; enforcement contravenes Virginia public policy and is unfair/burdensome	Clause is a valid, exclusive forum selection for Indiana; enforceable under federal law	Clause is valid; Plaintiffs failed to meet heavy burden to show unreasonableness
Transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) given valid clause	Transfer would be inconvenient and costly for Parks (travel, time off work)	Atlantic Marine requires transfer absent extraordinary public-interest reasons	Transfer granted; only public-interest factors considered and none justified denying transfer

Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49 (2013) (when a valid forum-selection clause exists, a district court should ordinarily transfer under §1404(a))
M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972) (forum-selection clauses are prima facie valid and enforceable; resisting party must show unreasonableness)
Albemarle Corp. v. AstraZeneca UK Ltd., 628 F.3d 643 (4th Cir. 2010) (federal law governs interpretation of forum-selection clauses and sets factors for unreasonableness)
Allen v. Lloyd's of London, 94 F.3d 923 (4th Cir. 1996) (articulates factors for when a forum-selection clause is unreasonable)
Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991) (upheld forum-selection clause despite unequal bargaining power)
Trs. of the Plumbers & Pipefitters Nat. Pension Fund v. Plumbing Servs., Inc., 791 F.3d 436 (4th Cir. 2015) (discusses §1404(a) transfer principles)
Koh v. Microtek Int'l, Inc., 250 F. Supp. 2d 627 (E.D. Va. 2003) (describes the two-step inquiry for §1404(a) transfers)