Mungovan v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc.

Background

Libby and Andrew Mungovan alleged that Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. deceived them during timeshare sales presentations at the Wilderness Resort and Glacier Canyon Resort in Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin. They alleged that Wyndham representatives made promises about the timeshare program, rushed them through two contracts, and gave them paperwork that did not match the documents they had signed. After returning to Minnesota, the Mungovans alleged that their costs increased, resort availability did not improve, and a $7,500 down payment was charged to two Wyndham-branded credit cards. They later stopped making direct payments, attempted to begin arbitration, and alleged that Wyndham issued a default notice, terminated their membership, reported them as delinquent, and made repeated collection calls.

The First Amended Complaint asserted seven causes of action: violations of the Wisconsin Time-Share Ownership Act, Wisconsin’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Wisconsin’s Prize Notices Statute, and Wisconsin’s Unfair Trade Practices Statute; fraud; unjust enrichment; and a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Wyndham’s Motion

Wyndham moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) for improper venue. Alternatively, it sought discretionary transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows a federal court to transfer a civil case to another proper federal district when convenience and fairness favor transfer. Wyndham also sought dismissal of certain aspects of Counts One and Four under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

Transfer Analysis

The court concluded that Wyndham met its burden to show that the Western District of Wisconsin was the more convenient forum. The Mungovans lived in Minnesota, and the Minnesota courthouse was closer to them, so the convenience-of-parties factor slightly favored the Mungovans. The court found the convenience-of-witnesses factor essentially even, gave no weight to the location of records and documents because they could be handled electronically, and found that the location of the conduct strongly favored transfer.

The court emphasized that both timeshare sales presentations occurred in Wisconsin Dells and that nearly all of the alleged misconduct occurred there. The court noted that the Fair Credit Reporting Act claim involved conduct in multiple locations, and the opinion did not make a clear finding that all of that conduct arose in the Western District of Wisconsin.

The court also considered the interests of justice. It gave some weight to the Mungovans’ choice to sue in Minnesota because they lived there, but less weight because most of the underlying events occurred in Wisconsin. The court found that transfer moderately favored having the Western District of Wisconsin address Wisconsin-law claims, including claims under Wisconsin’s timeshare and prize-notice statutes. The court concluded that the factors supporting transfer outweighed the factor against it.

Disposition

The court dismissed Count Four of the First Amended Complaint with prejudice, as the Mungovans had agreed to abandon that claim. It denied as moot the portion of Wyndham’s motion seeking dismissal for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3), because venue was proper in the Western District of Wisconsin. It granted Wyndham’s motion in part and denied it in part, granted the motion to the extent it sought transfer, and ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

The court declined to decide the remaining Rule 12(b)(6) arguments and left those issues for the receiving court to address at its discretion. Judge Katherine M. Menendez signed the order.