Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-01005/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-01005-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Trans Advantage, Inc., 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Pinos Altos Group, Inc., Jaime Gomez and

Reina Gomez, 

 Defendants. 

CV 14-1005-TUC-FRZ (JR) 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Trans Advantage, Inc.’s Motion for 

Remand (Doc. 9). In accordance with the Rules of Practice of the United States 

District Court for the District of Arizona and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this matter was 

referred to the Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation.1

 As explained 

below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after an independent 

review of the record, grant Trans Advantage’s motion. 

 

1

 Although apparently not addressed by the Ninth Circuit, other courts have held that 

motions to remand and for venue transfer are treated as dispositive motions. See In re U.S. 

Healthcare, 159 F.3d 142, 146 (3rd Cir. 1998) (motion for remand); First Union Mortg. 

Corp. v. Smith, 229 F.3d 992, 996 (10th Cir. 2000) (same); Williams v. Beemiller, Inc., 527 

F.3d 259, 265-66 (2nd Cir. 2008) (collecting cases); Payton v. Saginaw County Jail, 743 

F.Supp.2d 691, 692 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (venue transfer). As such, the Magistrate Judge will 

treat the motion as dispositive and issues this Report and Recommendation. 

Case 4:14-cv-01005-FRZ-JR Document 12 Filed 03/26/14 Page 1 of 6
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

I. BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiff Trans Advantage, Inc. (“Trans Advantage”) originally filed this 

action in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County in the State of Missouri on November 

6, 2013. See Petition, attached to Notice of Removal (Doc. 1). Named as defendants 

in the action are Pinos Altos Group, Inc., Jaime Gomez, and Reina Gomez. Id. 

Trans Advantage alleged that the Defendants had failed to make payments on several 

equipment leases executed by and between the parties and thereby breached the 

contracts. Petition, pp. 2-5 and 7-8. The Petition also alleges that Defendants Jaime 

Gomez and Reina Gomez breached their duties under personal guarantees of the 

equipment leases. Id., pp. 5-7. 

 On January 27, 2014, Defendants Jaime Gomez and Reina Gomez filed a 

Notice of Removal removing the action from the Missouri State Court to this Court, 

alleging that the removal was timely, the venue was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 

1446(a), and alleging diversity jurisdiction(Doc. 1). On February 20, 2014, Trans 

Advantage filed its Motion to Remand (Doc. 9). Defendants Jaime Gomez and Reina 

Gomez filed their response (Doc. 10), and Trans Advantage has filed its reply (Doc. 

11). 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Defendants’ removal was improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 

 Trans Advantage correctly argues that removal was improper because the 

statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), permits removal only “to the district court of the United 

States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 

Case 4:14-cv-01005-FRZ-JR Document 12 Filed 03/26/14 Page 2 of 6
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

See also 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (providing procedure for removal by refiling the action in 

the district court for the district and division within which the action is pending); Doe 

ex rel. Hughes v. Martinez, 674 F.Supp.2d 1282, 1284 (D. N.M. 2009) (remanding a 

case filed in Arizona and removed to federal court in New Mexico). This action was 

originally filed in St. Louis, Missouri. The federal district embracing that location is 

the Eastern District of Missouri, not the District of Arizona. 

B. Defendants’ removal was untimely. 

The removal statute on which the Defendants rely, 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), in 

relevant part requires that the notice of removal of a civil action be filed within 30 

days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the 

initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). This statute 

is “strictly construed, and any doubt about the right of removal requires resolution in 

favor of remand. The presumption against removal means that the defendant always 

has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Moore–Thomas v. Alaska 

Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotation 

omitted); see also Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 930 (9th Cir. 2004) (“There is a 

general presumption against federal court review, and the burden of establishing the 

contrary rests on the party asserting jurisdiction.”). Thus, “Section 1446(b)'s time 

limit is mandatory [such that] a timely objection to a late petition will defeat removal 

. . . .” Kuxhausen v. BMW Fin. Servs. NA LLC, 707 F.3d 1136, 1142 n. 4 (9th Cir. 

2013) (citations and internal quotation omitted). 

Case 4:14-cv-01005-FRZ-JR Document 12 Filed 03/26/14 Page 3 of 6
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

 Here, the Defendants admit in their Notice of Removal that the action was 

filed in Missouri on November 6, 2013, was served on December 2, 2013, but that 

their Notice of Removal was nevertheless timely when filed in this Court more than 

30 days later on January 27, 2014. Notice of Removal, p. 2. The Defendants do 

claim that Trans Advantage “provided an extension to respond until February 3, 

2014,” but do not offer an explanation or authority supporting the notion that the 

purported extension somehow tolled the removal requirements of section 1446. As 

such, they have not carried their burden of establishing that removal was timely. 

C. The forum selection clause precludes removal to Arizona. 

 At least one of the lease agreements allegedly breached by the Defendants 

provides that all actions relating to the lease “be litigated exclusively in the Missouri 

Circuit Court for St. Louis County, Missouri or the United States District Court for 

the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division . . . .” Petition (attached to Notice 

of Removal), Ex. B, ¶ 22. The same lease also provides that the lessee “irrevocably 

submits and consents to the jurisdiction and venue of the Missouri Circuit Court for 

St. Louis County, Missouri or the United States District Court for the Eastern District 

of Missouri, Eastern Division . . . .” Id. Forum selection clauses such as this are 

presumptively valid and the party challenging the clause “bears a heavy burden of 

proof” and “must clearly show that enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust, 

or that the clause was invalid for such reasons as fraud or over-reaching.” M/S 

Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 12-15 (1972); Murphy v. Schneider 

National, Inc., 362 F.3d 1133, 1140 (9th Cir. 2003); Manetti-Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci 

Case 4:14-cv-01005-FRZ-JR Document 12 Filed 03/26/14 Page 4 of 6
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

America, Inc., 858 F.2d 509, 514 (9th Cir. 1988). The party opposing enforcement of 

such a clause “has the heavy burden of showing that trial in the chosen forum would 

be so difficult and inconvenient that the party effectively would be denied a 

meaningful day in court.” Argueta v. Banco Mexicano, S.A., 87 F.3d 320, 325 (9th 

Cir.1996); Manetti-Farrow, 858 F.2d at 515. Enforcement of a forum selection 

clause may be unreasonable if: (1) the inclusion of the clause in the agreement was 

the product of fraud or overreaching; (2) the party wishing to repudiate the clause 

would effectively be deprived of his day in court were the clause enforced; or (3) 

enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which the suit 

is brought. Murphy, 362 F.3d at 1140. 

 In their response, the Defendants do not even address the forum selection 

clause contained in the lease. On the record before the Court there is no evidence of 

fraud or overreaching, that enforcement of the clause would deprive the Defendants 

of their day in court, or that there is some public policy that strongly favors the suit 

being heard in Arizona. The Defendants have therefore not satisfied their burden. 

Thus, the forum selection clause is presumptively valid and Missouri is the 

presumptively proper venue for this suit. See Murphy, 362 F.3d at 1140. 

III. RECOMMENDATION

 Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the 

District Court, after its independent review, grant Trans Advantage’s Motion for 

Remand (Doc. 9). 

Case 4:14-cv-01005-FRZ-JR Document 12 Filed 03/26/14 Page 5 of 6
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

 This Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), 

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District 

Court’s judgment. 

 However, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of 

a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with 

the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen (14) days 

within which to file a response to the objections. Replies shall not be filed without 

first obtaining leave to do so from the District Court. If any objections are filed, this 

action should be designated case number: CV 14-1005-TUC-FRZ. Failure to timely 

file objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate Judge may be 

considered a waiver of a party’s right to de novo consideration of the issues. See 

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.2003)(en banc). 

 Dated this 26th day of March, 2014. 

Case 4:14-cv-01005-FRZ-JR Document 12 Filed 03/26/14 Page 6 of 6