Texmo Oil Company Jobbers Incorporated v. Y Travel LLC
3:13-cv-08290
D. Ariz.Jun 12, 2014Background
- Plaintiffs Texmo Oil Company Jobbers, Inc. and 4-D Investments, Inc. (GASCARD) are Arizona corporations; Defendants Y Travel, LLC, David Jin, and the DY Trust are Nevada entities/residents.
- Y Travel applied for credit with Texmo in 2011; David Jin personally guaranteed the application. Credit was extended and Y Travel used Texmo/GASCARD fuel services.
- Plaintiffs allege Y Travel defaulted beginning in early 2013; invoices remained unpaid totaling at least $82,785.99 to Texmo and $115,058.95 to GASCARD as of the amended complaint.
- Relevant contacts with Arizona: Texmo delivered fuel to a Y Travel location in Meadview, Arizona, and Y Travel buses refueled at GASCARD’s Kingman, Arizona station.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and Rule 12(b)(3), or alternatively to transfer under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a).
- The Court denied the motion to dismiss and denied transfer, finding venue proper in Arizona and that Defendants failed to meet the burden to show transfer was warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue under §1391(b) | Arizona is proper because substantial events (deliveries/refueling) occurred in Arizona | Venue improper; majority of transactions and deliveries occurred in Nevada | Venue is proper in Arizona because a substantial part of events occurred there |
| Transfer under §§1404/1406 | Plaintiff chose home forum; witnesses and records also in Arizona; related Nevada suit differs and involves insurance | Nevada is more convenient; witnesses and records located there; related Nevada litigation exists | Transfer denied; defendants failed to show convenience and justice favor transfer; related Nevada action not duplicative |
Key Cases Cited
- Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 1998) (district court may decide motions without oral argument)
- Gulf Ins. Co. v. Glasbrenner, 417 F.3d 353 (2d Cir. 2005) (venue proper where significant events material to claim occurred)
- Rodriguez v. California Highway Patrol, 89 F. Supp. 2d 1131 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (§1391(b)(2) does not require majority of events to occur in forum)
- Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000) (factors for discretionary transfer of venue)
- Continental Grain Co. v. The FBL–585, 364 U.S. 19 (1960) (transfer doctrine aims to avoid duplicative litigation)