Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180326_0000635.NIL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 17:17:37+00:00

Document:
UNITED PACKAGING GROUP, LLC, Defendant.
HONORABLE MARVIN E. ASPEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff Serac Inc. (“Serac”) filed this diversity suit against Defendant United Packaging Group, LLC (“UPG”), asserting claims of breach of contract and account stated based on an unpaid sum UPG allegedly owes Serac for the purchase of liquid filling equipment. (Compl. (Dkt. No. 1).) Presently before us is UPG's motion to dismiss Serac's complaint for improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to the Central District of California. (Mot. (Dkt. No. 19).) For the following reasons, we deny UPG's motions to dismiss and to transfer.
We turn first to UPG's motion to dismiss for improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing venue is proper. Marzano v. Proficio Mortg. Ventures, LLC, 942 F.Supp.2d 781, 787 (N.D. Ill. 2013). When ruling on a 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss, we take all allegations in the complaint as true, unless contradicted by an affidavit, and we can consider facts outside the complaint. Nagel v. ADM Inv'r Servs., Inc., 995 F.Supp. 837, 843 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
UPG's sole argument for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(3) is that venue is improper in our district because UPG did not agree to the forum selection clause in Serac's quotation. (Mot. at 4-7.) However, the Supreme Court clarified in a unanimous opinion that “Rule 12(b)(3) allow[s] dismissal only when venue is ‘wrong' or ‘improper, '” which “depends exclusively on whether the court in which the case was brought satisfies the requirements of federal venue laws, and those provisions say nothing about a forum-selection clause.” Atl. Marine Const. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49, 134 S.Ct. 568, 577 (2013). Accordingly, “[w]hether the parties entered into a contract containing forum-selection clause has no bearing on whether a case falls into one of the categories of cases listed in [28 U.S.C.] § 1391(b).” Id.
In this instance, § 1391(b)(2) provides a basis for venue because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the Serac's claims occurred in the Northern District of Illinois. Serac negotiated with UPG through its headquarters in Carol Stream, Illinois. (Resp. at 2.) UPG sent its purchase orders to Serac's Illinois headquarters, and in May 2014, UPG's member Tom Hamic visited Serac's facilities to inspect and examine the filling equipment. (Id. at 2-3.) Serac also designed and manufactured the filling machine in Carol Stream, Illinois. (Id. at 6.) Because Serac performed virtually all of its obligations under the contract in this district, we find venue in this district is proper under § 1391(b)(2). See Citadel Grp. Ltd. v. Wash. Reg'l Med. Ctr., No. 07 C 1394, 2008 WL 5423553, at *3 (N.D. Ill.Dec. 29, 2008) (“Where the underlying events [in a contract action] are essentially communications made by two parties located in separate districts, ‘[t]he requirements of [§ 1391(b)(2)] may be satisfied by a communication transmitted to or from the district in which the cause of action was filed, given a sufficient relationship between the communication and the cause of action.'”) (citing Interlease Aviation Inv'rs II (Aloha) LLC v. Vanguard Airlines, Inc., 262 F.Supp.2d 898, 913 (N.D. Ill. 2003)). UPG's contacts with the Central District of California do not render venue improper in Illinois. See Caldera Pharms., Inc. v. Los Alamos Nat. Sec., LLC, 844 F.Supp.2d 926, 929 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (“If the selected district's contacts are ‘substantial, ' it should make no difference that another's are more so, or the most so.”) (citing Chem. Waste Mgmt. v. Sims, 870 F.Supp. 870, 875 (N.D. Ill. 1994)); TruServ Corp. v. Neff, 6 F.Supp.2d 790, 792 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (“The test is not whether a majority of the activities pertaining to the case were performed in a particular district, but whether a substantial portion of the activities giving rise to the claim occurred in the particular district.”). We accordingly find venue proper and deny UPG's motion to dismiss.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1391
 § 1391
 § 1391
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.