Cabrera v. Ford Motor Company

Background

Ilzia and John Cabrera purchased a 2017 Ford F-150 from El Centro Motors in El Centro, California, on or about July 4, 2017. They alleged that Ford breached warranties covering the vehicle and asserted four claims, including claims under the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and common law. The vehicle was taken to El Centro Motors for repairs several times between 2018 and 2022.

Ford moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) to dismiss for improper venue, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case, and under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Cabreras opposed the motion. The court also granted the Cabreras’ request for judicial notice of Ford’s California Secretary of State filing because it was a public record whose authenticity Ford did not dispute.

Improper Venue

The court held that the Cabreras had not met their burden to show that venue was proper in the Northern District of California. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue may be proper where a defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred. For a corporation, residence depends in part on whether the corporation would be subject to personal jurisdiction in the district if that district were treated as a separate state.

The court rejected the Cabreras’ argument that Ford resided in the Northern District because Ford maintained an office in Palo Alto. Ford was incorporated in Delaware and had its principal place of business in Michigan. The court explained that an office in Palo Alto was not Ford’s principal place of business and did not show that Ford was essentially at home in California for general personal jurisdiction.

The court found that Ford had purposefully conducted activities in the Northern District because it maintained the Palo Alto office. However, the Cabreras did not show that their claims were related to Ford’s activities there. The vehicle was purchased in El Centro, and all service events identified in the record occurred at El Centro Motors. The court therefore concluded that Ford did not reside in the Northern District for venue purposes and that no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there.

Because venue was improper, the court could dismiss the case or transfer it under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to a district where it could have been brought. The court found that transfer, rather than dismissal, was in the interest of justice and transferred the case to the Southern District of California.

Discretionary Transfer

The court separately held that transfer would also be appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), even if venue had been proper in the Northern District. The Southern District could hear the claims, exercise personal jurisdiction over the parties based on the alleged events, and provide a proper venue because significant events occurred in El Centro.

The court found that the Cabreras’ choice of forum weighed slightly against transfer, but that the convenience of the parties and witnesses and access to evidence favored transfer. The court noted that the Cabreras resided in the Southern District, all events connected to their claims occurred there, both parties’ counsel were located closer to the Southern District, and potential witnesses and relevant evidence were likely associated with El Centro Motors.

Disposition

The court ordered that Ford’s motion to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) and transfer venue under § 1404(a) was GRANTED. The case shall be transferred to the Southern District of California. Ford’s separate motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) was DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Ford refiling that motion in the proper court.