Martinez v. BMW of North America, LLC

Background

Rolando Martinez sued BMW of North America, LLC on behalf of a proposed class of BMW vehicle owners and lessees. He alleged that BMW should have paid for two repair visits under California’s seven-year, 70,000-mile emissions warranty because the repaired parts should have been identified as high-priced warranted parts under California Code of Regulations section 2037(c). Martinez paid $619.47 plus tax for repairs in February 2016 and $1,902.22 plus tax for additional work in October 2016.

Martinez first filed a class action against BMW in the Central District of California. That case was dismissed without prejudice after the court determined that he had not adequately pleaded one party’s citizenship for jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. Martinez did not amend that complaint. He later filed a new case in Alameda County Superior Court, which BMW removed to the Northern District of California.

BMW moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case to the Central District of California. Section 1404(a) allows a federal court to transfer a case when the proposed district is a proper venue and the transfer would promote party and witness convenience and the interest of justice.

Analysis

The court concluded that the Central District was a proper venue because Martinez had initially filed there. It then considered the factors used to decide whether transfer was appropriate.

The court gave Martinez’s choice of the Northern District little weight. It found that his choice received substantially less deference because he lived in the Central District, the events underlying his claims occurred there, he sued on behalf of a proposed class, and he had previously filed the case there before filing in the Northern District.

The party-convenience factor was neutral. Although BMW argued that the Central District would be more convenient for it, Martinez, and their counsel, the court gave little weight to counsel’s location and noted that Martinez had declared the Northern District convenient by filing there. The witness-convenience factor was also neutral because BMW identified potential nonparty witnesses connected to the repair facility in the Central District, while Martinez identified potential witnesses from the California Air Resources Board for whom the Northern District would be more convenient. The access-to-evidence factor was neutral because documents could likely be stored and retrieved electronically.

The interest-of-justice analysis favored transfer. The court found that the Central District had a greater local interest because Martinez bought and serviced his vehicle there, all events underlying his individual claim occurred there, and the Central District had more than twice as many authorized repair facilities as the Northern District. The court also considered Martinez’s decision to file first in the Central District and then file in Alameda County Superior Court, stating that the circumstances suggested forum shopping.

Ruling

Judge William H. Orrick granted BMW’s motion to transfer. The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The court vacated the December 17, 2019 hearing and case-management conference and terminated the stipulation at docket entry 25 as moot. The order decided venue, not whether Martinez’s warranty claims were legally valid.