Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02203/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02203-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332fr Diversity-Fraud

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SONET TRANSPORTATION AND

LOGISTICS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 18cv2203 JM(BLM)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

TRANSFER VENUE TO THE

v. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUSH TRUCK LEASING, INC.,; and

VEHICLE TITLING TRUST,

Defendants.

Defendants Bush Truck Leasing,Inc.(“Bush”) and VehicleTitling Trust (“VIT”)

move to dismiss the complaint for improper venue or, alternatively, (1) for a

convenience transfer to the Southern District of Ohio or (2) to dismiss the action for

failure to state a claim. Plaintiff Sonet Transportation and Logistics, Inc. (“Sonet”)

opposes the motions. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the court finds the matters

presented appropriate for decision without oral argument. For the reasons set forth

below, the court grants the motion to transfer the action to the Southern District of

Ohio, and denies all other pending motions as moot. 

BACKGROUND

On September 21, 2018, Plaintiffs commenced this diversity action by alleging

three causes of action: (1) fraud in concealment; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; and (3)

breach of good faith and fair dealing. (ECF 1). Sonet, a California corporation with

- 1 - 18cv2203

Case 3:18-cv-02203-JM-BLM Document 17 Filed 01/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

its principal place of business in San Diego, California, is “engaged in the trucking

industry, providing transportation to its customers.” (Compl. ¶10). Defendants Bush

and VIT, citizens of Ohio, are engaged in the business of financing and leasing

commercial vehicles.

Commencing in 2015 and continuing into 2016, Sonet leased 28 delivery trucks

from Defendants, with Defendants as the registered owners of the trucks. Under the

leases, Sonet was responsible for all maintenance and repairs. All trucks contained

engines manufactured by non-party Cummins, Inc. Beginning in 2016, the trucks

began experiencing engine problems. These engine problems caused Sonet to incur

additional expenses for towing costs, repair and replacement costs, lost revenue, loss

of customers, and damage to its reputation. (Compl. ¶17). Plaintiff alleges that the

additional costs were incurred because of a defect in the engines manufactured by

Cummins. Inc. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the ceramic coated fuel pump would

slowly disintegrate causing significant damage to the engine. (Id.).

In the summer of 2017, Sonet learned that in May 2014, Cummins issued a

Technical Service Bulletin (“Bulletin”) to all distributors and owners of trucks with the

defective fuel pump. The Bulletin advised registered owners of the trucks that the

ceramic fuel pump would slowly disintegrate, causing significant damage if left unreplaced. (Compl. ¶19). Cummins also allegedly offered an inexpensive and simple

replacement of the fuel pump. Plaintiff alleges that the Bulletin was not available to

the general public, and Defendants did not inform Sonet of the defect. As a

consequence, Sonet has spent over $600,000 to repair the damages caused by the

allegedly defective fuel pump.

Each lease agreement contains a forum selection clause identifying either

Montgomery County Ohio (19 of the 28 lease agreements) or the state of Delaware (9

of the 28 lease agreements) as the appropriate forum for resolving the parties’ claims. 

Rather than commence the action in one of the designated forums, Sonet commenced

the action in this judicial district.

- 2 - 18cv2203

Case 3:18-cv-02203-JM-BLM Document 17 Filed 01/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DISCUSSION

Defendants move to transfer this action to the Southern District of Ohio. Under 1

28 U.S.C. §1404(a), the court may transfer an action to any other district or division

where it might have been brought “[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses

and in the interest of justice.” Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. McDonnell Douglas

Corp, 820 F.Supp. 503, 506 (C.D. Cal. 1992). A convenience transfer under §1404(a)

requires the court to assess a variety of factors and “involvessubtle considerations and

is best left to the discretion of the trial judge." Sparling v. Hoffman Construction, 864

F.2d 635, 639 (9th Cir. 1988). The court may consider the convenience of the parties

and witnesses, and the promotion of judicial efficiency and economy in determining

whether to transfer an action. Id. Private factors to be considered include the location

where the operative events occurred, the convenience of the parties and non-party

witnesses, the location ofrelevant evidence, the availability of compulsory process, and

other practical considerations for the efficient and cost-effective resolution of claims. 

Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9 Cir. 1986); th

Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000). Courts also

look to the so-called public factors such as relative docket congestion, the local public

and jury pool’s interest in the controversy, and issues relative to judicial economy. Id.

at 508-09. Defendant has the burden of demonstrating that transfer is appropriate, see

Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1981),

and the court accords substantial weight to a plaintiff resident’s choice of venue. 

Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Vigman, 764 F.2d 1309, 1317 (9 Cir. 1985). th

However, “[i]f the operative facts have not occurred within the forum and the forum

has no interest in the parties or subject matter,” plaintiff’s choice “is entitled to only

minimal consideration.” Lou v. Belzerg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9 Cir. 1987). th

Here, the court concludes that, on balance, a venue transfer is warranted under

The parties do not dispute that venue under the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. 1

§1391, is appropriate in the Southern District of Ohio. 

- 3 - 18cv2203

Case 3:18-cv-02203-JM-BLM Document 17 Filed 01/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the circumstancesto promote the fair and efficient resolution of Plaintiff’s claims. The

most important consideration,the convenience of parties and witnesses, favors transfer. 

The events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims bear a substantial relationship to Indiana,

the state where Cummins is located and its engines produced, and Ohio, the state of

Defendants’ citizenship. In broad brush, the thrust of Plaintiff’s claimisthat Cummins

communicated information about the defective fuel pump to Defendants in Ohio, and

Defendants failed to communicate that information to Sonet in San Diego. Witnesses,

evidence, and documentation concerning the defective fuel pump, and related alleged

omissions, are located in Indiana and Ohio, and only tangentially related to California.

In response, Plaintiff contends that the leases were executed in San Diego and

the trucks delivered, inspected, and repaired in San Diego. Plaintiff focuses on the

contacts of Defendants to the present forum and not on venue considerations such as

the residence of Defendants and the location where “a substantial part of the events or

omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2). A substantial

part of the challenged conduct at issue occurred outside the present forum.

Furthermore, the parties, by contract, selected Ohio asthe appropriate venue for

19 of the 28 leases and Delaware for nine of the leases. The majority of the leases

selected Ohio as the appropriate forum, and Ohio has a stronger connection to this

litigation than the present forum. See Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. District Court,

571 U.S. 49, 63 (2013) (“a valid forum-selection clause should be given controlling

weight in all but the most exceptional cases”). This factor overwhelmingly supports

transfer to the Southern District of Ohio. 

With respect to the public considerations, the factors are neutral at best. The

parties do not identify that one judicial district is more overburdened than the other. 

The public factors do not favor one forum over the other.

In sum, the court finds that a convenience transfer is warranted under the

circumstances to promote the convenience of the parties and witnesses and serves the

interests of justice. 

- 4 - 18cv2203

Case 3:18-cv-02203-JM-BLM Document 17 Filed 01/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The court grantsthe motion for a venue transfer to the Southern District of Ohio,

denies all other pending motions as moot, and instructs the Clerk of Court to transfer

the action to the Southern District of Ohio.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 24, 2019

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

- 5 - 18cv2203

Case 3:18-cv-02203-JM-BLM Document 17 Filed 01/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5