Free Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-01048-PCD Document 28-2 Filed 11/21/2003 Page 1 of 3
LEXSEE199? U.5i.1'J-IS`1`. LEXIS 23966
Ii. ORONBACII Ei ASSOCIATES, INC. ET AI.-, v. CHAMPION MOTOR
LEASING, ET AL.
Civil Nn. 3:9T·’evI3{AHN}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
J99? L·'.,$Z Dist. LEX!.‘1'2.I666
June 14, 1997, Decided
June 24, 1997, Filed
DISPOSITION: [*1] IJetendarits' Motion to Transler 1: A CTS
[doc. at I4] GRANTED. ' '
Kenneth Cronbaeh is a citizen of Connecticut and
COUNSEL: For K ORONDACI1 62: ASSOC, INC, Oronbach, Inc. is incorporated in Connecticut with its
KENNETH {IRONEACH, plaintitts: David E. Iiamins, principal place of business [*2] in Connecticut.
Dloomtield, CT. Champion is a New York corporation with its principal
place olbusiness in New York. {See Cotnpl. Count I PP
For CHAMPION MOTOR I.EASl'NO CORP, ROEER`l` I-2.} NW Yelticle is incorporated in New Jersey with its
COHEN, NW VEHICLE I-`lJNDl`N·i3 CORP, defendants: principal place of business in York. Robert Cohen
Ivlarli Iv'. Connolly, Tyler Cooper cli; Alcorn, Hartliird, is a citizen ot` the state of New York. {See Notice of
CT. Removal P 5.}
i-at cuhraision rviotos eissstno cosus, sossat P '" {H9; lf}-. *$°”“"‘; G'““'*’“T*' “’“g"; E P“[F*:1“—`i*"
consist. uw vertices 1-·or~1ornc cose, aeraiasnre :_{L_Q’S$f;rk“'t¤“?:;;ii;;mF'·;;f5*L“Bc;i°; 3;%:3*; *15;*;
.· — · . . ` ` " ‘ 9- -
CNY L Hmdmmh Nw, YMk’ NY" Congpl. Coupdts I S; 3 Fg 3, 4.] Upprgplocminlgda Porschp
. ., , _ _ · . , · - _ at ower otorcar ompany '* ower otoreai-" ,
JUDCLS. Alan II. Nevas, United States Distrnctludge. Gmnbmh and GHmbach1 Im. mught purchase fmncing,
_ _ but were unable tn obtain the necessary liinding. [See id.
DPINIDHBR mEmH` Num Counts I Sc 3 PP 5, I5.] Power l'v1otorcar subsequently
OPINION: arranged a lease between Champion and Oronbach, Inc.,
which was personally guaranteed by Crronbach. {See id.
RULING ON MOTION 'I`O TRANSFER Count I, PP 6, T; Count 3, P I3.} Llpon delivery of the
Plaimmé K Gmnbmh & Associates Im: vehicle to Crronbach, Inc., Crronbach signed the lease
{"Crronbach, Inc."} and Kenneth Oronbach ["Ornnbach"} agmBmEm' A mw Dfthu IEEE? [DF apumrm thmgn was
bring Sun against Champion Mmm I easing made at Crronbach, Inc.. [See id. Count l PP 9, Ill.]
["Champion"j, Robert Cohen {"Coheo"}, and NW Clianipion, in accordance with Connecticut motor
Vehicle Funding Corporation {"NW Yehicle"}. 1·*laintit°Fs vehicle laws, registered the Porsche in Connecticut. The
allege, inter alia, breach of an automobile lease contract. registration expired [*3] on June 39, l995. [See id.
{ . ._ , . Count I PP I3-I5; Count 3 PP IO·I9.}| Champion failed
T mxggsénigsugsllgéjglg gg? 6.dif§5;?L3tSw [:I:1r;L:j:i1§g to renew the registration until July 1996, rendering the
r ‘ Tip . , . “` ‘· _ .‘ ._ Porsche inoperable on Connecticut roads For a period of
States District Lourt lor the Eastem District of New . ,
. _ , . one year and causing Gronbach and Oronbach, Inc. to
York. For the following reasons, defendants motion . . . .
d if M] ._ GRANTED procure a replacement vehicle during that time. [See id.
[ ‘*’°· ‘” · csiimi as nasa; coast s i=t=is,21,2-1.)

Case 3:03-cv—01048-PCD Document 28-2 Filed 11/21/2003 Page 2 of 3
Page 2
1992 US. Dist. l.FZl{IS 23l.l66, *
Plaintiffs tiled suit against tlte defendants in allegation, and plaintifts have submitted nn evidence,
Connecticut Superior Court tbr tlte Judicial District of that the clause itself was [*5] obtained bv fraud or that
Middlesex at Ivliddletown. Defendants thereafter the result would be unjust if thc clause was enforced. See
removed the case to federal court. claiming the existence atnrons v. li’urlc'rcl Services, Inc., 25*5*+5 LIS. Dist. L.eJJt'I.'·I
of divc·rsity·jutEsdiction. 4959, No. P5 C`t`1=. o'4'a'5 r'AGS,,I, .f.t?'5F't5 HFL fal·a’5?.1‘-I, at *2-3
DISCUSSION [S.D.N.Y. Apr. I2, 1996}. Consequently, tlte court
concludes tltat the Iorum selection clause ts enforceable.
I. Enforcement ofthe Forum Selection Clause H T E. U d 28 L S L. S 1, W 4 ( }
.rartr·ier ner '.. ._ a
Defendants argue that the forum selection clause - aa- - -
contained in the lease agreement is enforceable and m.§l[Tu£n [.4G4[al STI'? NLT ['l"_lhF.C¤fvEnIcnF¤.“l
warrants taaaaraa tn ina Eastern District of New vaatt. it ii “*“ t" ‘*"‘i"tii“~ “‘ Ei? ‘"L“F°t“· '“ J“i“°"’· “_***iFI!°*
pmvidw court nitty transler any civil action to any other Judicial
` district or division where it might have been brought." Ft'?
aa. Lariat- aa.~.~aaaaa.a aaaaa tease gf-·*--{-. at fiijiig ·¥‘t*t’t{_* Ittgt- eggs ’“1i't'm“°*·
SHALL BE MTERPRFTFD TN Dfuatitofnwttauy havin een. roug than the Eastern
nccoaoatucc wtrn ras tattvvs os .uTjqc[f tf fwihftf 6. I .I;‘“*"§ iii i" lfm [U I*“*““*i'
tus STATE or saw votut ann [mgm? ***:1 *;:1, id ;i"° QT . "*:‘“"’ E-:,*’k“” SFPFLI
asoaancsss or tits onoctt in ,_,,,:,?j it ,.,§a,f“ ia? "“i;9;éL"q '*’“‘ 'i*‘· °“ 2*
wurcn Tns stenattctoas or ras · A {ill fil ~“I’I’· limi-
PARTIES ARE AFFIXED, [T SIIALL Once a court determines that an action could have
BE ` DEIEMED H EXECUTED AT been brought in the transferee district, it must next weigh
LI;S'.sOR'S PLACE OF BUSINESS several factors when resolving whether transfer is
DESIC·NA“l‘ED l-lEI<.lilN AND IN THE warranted. These factors are: {I} the place where the
COUNTY TIIEREOF. IN `1`l—lI; S`l"A`I`E operative facts occurred, L2} the convenience to parties,
OF NEW YORK; LESSOF. ANY [3} the convenience of witnesses, {4} the relative [*6]
GIIARANTOR HEREOF CONSENT TO ease of access to sources of proof, {5] the availability of
;‘I[`-l;T][rLllt.I(S)l].;lC‘l`i—?t£l)L[:*4] OE ANY process to compel attendance of unwilling witnesses, [e]
· · ·` AL `OLI RT the plaintiffs choice of forum. [T] the fon.1m's familiarity
LOCATED WITIITN TIIE STATE Oli with the goveming law, and [S} trial ef|`icie·ncy and the
NEW YORK AND AGREE THAT ALL interests of justice. See xiarrons, l'5i'9'd WL lo'5I·’N, at *3.
ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGS The existence of a fomm selection clause is a
ARISING, DIRECTLY OR "significant," but not tt dispositive, factor in the analysis.
INDIRECT LY, FROM THIS L-EASE See ."Tt'ewart Organization it Rico}: Corp., JH? [LS. 22.
SHALL EE LITIGATED ONLY IN 29, Int L Ee'. 2d 22, ldd S. Cr. 2239 (ryan). Applying
COURTS HAVING SUCH SITUS. these factors to the ease at hand, the court concludes that
transfer to the Eastern District of New York is proper.
Del`s.' l‘vlol.TtaJ1sl`er Ex. A F ld-. Mm} Uhh 1. LD H: ct. U f I-ml I,
· e ac rata e ing ans er are neu or
Forum selection clauses "art: prima facie valid and both parties, 1·`[rst, the operation tg;-,1;5_, qqaguypgaaj in lggrh
should be enforced unless enforcement is shown by the New York and Connecticut. Negotiation for the lease of
resisting party to be 'unreasonab]e' under the the Porsche occurred in New York while the alleged
circumstanecs." .·L{-{S Bremen v. Zapata Oaj*iSnore Co.. breach transpired in Connecticut. Although the actual
att}? t.·'..'§. I, ttl, 32 L. Ent 2d EH, 92 S. Cr. IPO? {a'9?2,l,· signing of the lease took place in Connecticut, the lease
see also .a'one.·t v. Weilirccnr, QUT atT2t:t' I Iii (Ed Ctr. terms dictate tltat the contract was signed in New York.
ISISIIJ) [Ending that fraud or overrcaching would provide {See Defs.' lvlot. Transfer Ex. A P I4.] Second, litigation
grotmds for not enforcing a forum selection clause}. in either forum is not unduly burdensome to the parties.
siatattrra argue that ttta forutn aataatiaa ataaaa is [°Q*t'§‘},['l';‘_,;*_i_f§“§'l,*i_:_;l'_Q $m°"‘“'§_;" ;'i"i“ *";`“;l‘**;'“‘itI“i'_‘l“
unenforceable because they were unaware of its {mm thc Cgnnamcm Df;n;_._ [Em gumntm 13,';l:S;"°5
existence wlten they executed the lease. The court wjmcggcs am E ual] lit bgrgr D NUTWY Eklccii
disagrees. A "nonnecotiated forum selection clause" is . Ll Y SD] . Tm cv`, M an,
. . . ·~ . Connecticut, and the convenience of witnesses is
enforceable if it is reasonable. not gained through fraud thcmmm nlm mmm The facmrs mlm. t f
or done to disactiurage legitimate claims, See Carnhtof . _ . .. _' mg U mfcgss 0
aaaaaa aaa. a. aaaaaa, aaa aaa. aaa, aaa-aa_ aaa a. aaa. tgggjtg g;g*l¤§,jQp;_jtngr¤¤g;ST§—; msgstrgrst bet
za: 622, tar s. ca. H22 arssra. 'l`he cetnptatatt attattta no P. A . P . .‘“ F gf f' fi l’“"‘Y:’·
Finally, the interests cfjusnce Iactor is neutral - there is

Case 3:03-cv—01048-PCD Document 28-2 Filed 11/21/2003 Page 3 of 3
_ Pagcfi
iw? U.S.D1st.Ll;}•L[E~i 23t`1·lS6, "
no evidence tolsupportaltinding that one district is more Overall, while some factors do not change the
available to adjudicate this case than another. balance significantly, "the presence of the forum
In mmmgt mu Munn wmgh hemrilv in {mm ul, selection clause attd the choice of law provision weigh
caterer. rirsr is the ptatmatrs entries ar rsnrm. ]"°’]Eft""]l"Il"[I1"""*"“lf*’“"i*ff”· *.h”“* ff'““*‘“f “'°'° *“'°%*“·*'
"ftlthough a plaintiffs choice of forum would normally Ezjgfg i1$4ai1T1Zn-:i`1l1f5h`c1t [muah Aw¤m’ gfff WL
be given deference, once a forum selection clause is mmm ’_;IECti0]]a'2]au;c E";] nc; Bminsgmc @****:1*
eaamrraee to use t-site are tsnnrr sears the a ec r . . · . Z ““ "“ E "’“ fm -
showing why the contzractupal provision shouldmnof ffc (“m15lId§Tur]l?n.Gf tht Q_ liigigialbraulnrs lgjqfma wml m
mmrw [1-,, jmmmi *,996 WL 1,85Hg- M *3 {jmcma] pf`ptl‘irc1;iSftgrjpt viou e est serve. 1 the motion
citations omitted}. As described above, no such showing i E L `
has been rttade and thus the clause heavily favors CUNCLLZSIUN
transfer. See Srewnrr, J5? L·'..‘§. er 29 {linding that a F th 1, . d f d , M ,
fon.int selection clause "will be a significant factor tltat Tram; [de ;ni§?]PgG;§w$_iD E lm as Gunn m
tigurcs centrally in the district court's calculus."]. ` m` is '
Second, l.hc forum [*5] sclcction clauac also contains a The Clerk ofthe Court shall transfer this case to the
choice of law provision which provides that New ‘1’ork United States District Court for the Eastern District of
law is to govern the contract. 'lhe presence of this `!few*r'orlt.
provision also favors transfer. See I-`eremr v. Jalan Deere _ __ _ _
ria., arse c·1.s·. srs, ssa, res r. err. 2e ers, rre s. cr. B .*15*0 "f*l‘fE“Ef?_ Lim 24 ddl st J“"“· wg? fi
il'2?4 (I$·'L·'·Ll,l {diversity cases should he tried in the H gmc ’ mmcH“uL‘
"forutn that is at borne with the state law that must alan [-[_ Ngvgg
T ‘ th · . ·.". _ , _
wwm EMBL J United [*9] States Districtludge