Quartaro v. Yamaha Motor Corporation, USA
3:12-cv-00075
W.D. Ky.Sep 2, 2014Background
- Plaintiff William Quartaro, executor of the Estate of Joseph Quartaro, is a New York resident who alleges injury in Mexico from a Yamaha Rhino ATV.
- The action was filed in the Western District of Kentucky as part of the Yamaha Rhino MDL and later reassigned to this court.
- Plaintiff died during the suit; the executor was substituted as party.
- Plaintiff moved to transfer venue to SDNY or, alternatively, to the Central District of California or the Northern District of Georgia.
- Defendants Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., Yamaha Motor Manufacturing Corporation of America, and Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. oppose transfer and prefer dismissal or keeping venue in Kentucky.
- The court applies 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) two-part test and the nine-factor convenience/fairness framework, with the moving party bearing the burden to show transfer is proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the transferee courts could have originally heard the case. | Quartaro seeks transfer to NY, CA, or GA. | Only CA and GA qualify for substantial-part-events venue. | CA and GA could have been original venues; NY could not. |
| Whether the 1404(a) factors favor transfer in this case. | Court should transfer for convenience to a more appropriate venue. | Court should keep or dismiss if forum non conveniens applies. | The balance favors transfer to Georgia, not Kentucky. |
| Which district between CA and GA is most appropriate. | CA is an available venue; arguments focus on forum choices. | GA has greater connection to manufacture/design evidence. | Northern District of Georgia is most appropriate. |
| How MDL-related agreements impact the transfer decision. | MDL orders show transfer was contemplated. | Agreements do not bind transfer choice to a specific court. | MDL-related agreements support transfer to GA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rutherford v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 943 F.Supp. 789 (W.D. Ky. 1996) (two-step § 1404(a) test; convenience and interests of justice)
- Moses v. Business Card Exp., Inc., 929 F.2d 1131 (6th Cir. 1991) (courts consider private/public factors in transfer)
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947) (plaintiff's choice of forum is not dispositive; balance of convenience)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964) (federal transfer doctrine; case-by-case balancing)
- Lewis v. ACB Business Services, Inc., 135 F.3d 389 (6th Cir. 1998) (multi-factor analysis governs transfer decisions)
- Perceptron, Inc. v. Silicon Video, Inc., 423 F.Supp.2d 722 (E.D. Mich. 2006) (nine-factor framework reference for § 1404(a))