Sarigumba v. Universal Music Group, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
KATHERINE SARIGUMBA, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
V. 	§
§
UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, INC., 	§
§
Defendant. 	§
ORDER
Civil Action No. H-25-2578
Pending 	before 	the 	Court 	is 	Defendant's 	Motion 	to 	Transfer 	Venue
(Document No. 21 ). Having considered the motion, submissions, and applicable law,
the Court determines that the motion should be granted.
I. 	BACKGROUND
This 	case involves 	alleged violations 	of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"). Plaintiff Katherine Sarigumba ("Sarigumba") previously worked as a
customer 	service 	representative 	for 	Defendant 	Universal 	Music 	Group, 	Inc.
("UMG"). Sarigumba was staffed to work for UMG through a staffing company, a
non-party to this matter, Leading Edge Connections, LLC ("LEC"). On February 24,
2022, Sarigumba and LEC entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement (the
"Contract"). Sarigumba alleges that she was unlawfully terminated in retaliation for
"(l) participating in an FLSA lawsuit against ... LEC[;] (2) fil[ing] a formal
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 13, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-02578 Document 30 Filed 01/13/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 8

complaint with the Texas Workforce Commission[;] and (3) complaining that UMG
improperly classified her as an independent contractor[.]" 1
Based on the foregoing, on June 4, 2025, Sarigumba filed suit in this Court,
pursuant to 	federal 	question jurisdiction, 	asserting 	a claim against UMG 	for
"retaliatory termination for engaging in protected activities under the FLSA[.]" 2 On
October 6, 2025, UMG moved to transfer venue to the Middle District ofFlorida. 3
On December 5, 2025, Sarigumba responded in opposition. 4
II. LAW & ANALYSIS
UMG contends that venue should be transferred "[t]o enforce [the] forum
selection clause[.]" 5 Sarigumba contends that UMG's motion to transfer should be
denied because venue is proper in the Southern District of Texas. 6 The Court
1 Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1 at 1.
2 Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1 at 7.
3 See Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue, Document No. 21 at 1.
4 See Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue, Document
No. 28 at 1. The Court notes its prior October 17, 2025, Order staying this matter for 45
days and extending Sarigumba's deadline to respond to UMG's motion to transfer. Order
Granting Motion to Stay, Document No. 23 at 1-2. As such, Sarigumba's response is
timely filed and the Court will fully consider it.
5 Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue, Document No. 21 at 4.
6 Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue, Document No.
28 at 1.
2
Case 4:25-cv-02578 Document 30 Filed 01/13/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 8

construes all pro se filings liberally. See Erickson v. 	Paradus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007).
The Supreme Court has long held that a forum selection clause can be
enforced by a motion to transfer. See Atlantic Marine Const. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist.
Court for W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49, 51 (2013). When a valid forum selection
clause is found, "that forum-selection [clause] should control except in unusual
cases." Id. Furthermore, when a forum selection clause controls, the plaintiff, "as the
party defying the forum-selection clause, has the burden of establishing that a
transfer to the forum for which the parties bargained is unwarranted." Id. Lastly,
when considering a motion to transfer in light of a forum selection clause, the court
considers 	only 	public 	interests 	and "should not 	consider the ·parties' 	private
interests[.]" Id. Most pertinent here, the Fifth Circuit has held that "the closely-
related 	doctrine 	may 	under 	limited 	circumstances 	bind 	non-signatories 	to 	a
contract's forum selection clause[.]" 	Franlink Incorporated v. 	BACE Services,
Incorporated, 50 F.4th 432, 445 (5th Cir. 2022).
Here, UMG contends that there 	is 	a valid forum 	selection clause, that
enforcement of said clause favors public interests, and that UMG, as a closely related
party, may enforce the clause. In response, Sarigumba contends that UMG was not
a party to the agreement in which the forum selection clause was signed, and thus,
cannot enforce 	it. 	Sarigumba further 	contends that "transfer would prejudice
3
Case 4:25-cv-02578 Document 30 Filed 01/13/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 8

plaintiff[,]" that "venue is proper in this district[,]" and that the clause is invalid. 7
The Court will consider, in tum, each of Sarigumba's objections to UMG's motion
to transfer.
First, UMG contends that it can enforce the forum selection clause between
Sarigumba and LEC. 8 In response, Sarigumba contends that UMG may not enforce
the forum selection clause contending that "[a] non-party cannot dictate venue." 9 A
review of the record in this matter reveals that "[b]ut for the Contractor Agreement,
[between LEC and Sarigumba] Plaintiff [Sarigumba] would not have performed
services for UMG." 10 As such, the Court finds that UMG was closely related to LEC
with respect to Sarigumba's employment. Given the Fifth Circuit's clear guidance
that a non-party to a contract can enforce a forum selection clause when they are
closely related to a signatory, the Court finds that UMG can enforce· the forum
selection clause. The Court will now consider Sarigumba's remaining arguments.
7 Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue, Document No.
28 at 1-2.
8 Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue, Document No. 21 at 9.
9 Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue, Document No.
28 at 3.
10 Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue, Document No. 21 at 10.
4
Case 4:25-cv-02578 Document 30 Filed 01/13/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 8

UMG 	contends 	that 	there 	is 	a 	valid 	forum 	selection 	clause 	and 	that
enforcement 	of the 	clause 	favors 	public 	interests. 11 In 	response, 	Sarigumba
challenges the validity of the clause citing "inconsistent dates[,]" contends that a
transfer would "prejudice plaintiffl,]" and further contends that venue is proper in
the Southern District of Texas under U.S.C. § 1391. 12 Sarigumba argues that "[t]he
ICA [Contract] includes inconsistent dates such as '03/2022-02/2022,' making it
facially invalid." 13 The Court has conducted, in detail, an independent review of the
Contract between Sarigurriba and LEC. Sarigumba appears to be contending that the
language "[t]he effective date and start date of this role will be March 4, 2022[,]"
and "offer will expire at February 25, 2022" is inconsistent and makes the contract
invalid. 14 Even construing the language liberally in favor of Sarigumba's argument,
the Court is unable to reach an interpretation that would suggest the language is
inconsistent or invalidates the agreement. A further review of the Contract reveals
that Sarigumba signed the agreement on February 24, 2022, a day prior to the
11 Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue, Document No. 21 at 6-7.
12 Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue, Document No.
28 at 1-2.
13 Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue, Document No.
28 at 2.
14 See Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue, Document
No. 28 at 2; Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue, Document No. 21, Exhibit 2 at 2
[Independent Contractor Agreement].
5
Case 4:25-cv-02578 Document 30 Filed 01/13/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 8

expiration 	of the agreement. 15 Based on the foregoing, 	and the Court's own
independent review of the Contract, the Court finds that Sarigumba entered a valid
contract with LEC containing a valid forum selection clause. 16 The Court will now
consider Sarigumba's contentions that transfer would be prejudicial and that venue
is currently proper.
Sarigumba contends, in relevant part, that "venue is proper in this district
under 28 U.S.C. § 139l(b)(2)" and that transfer would be prejudicial. 17 In reply,
UMG contends that while § .1391 governs venue generally, parties "waive the right
to challenge the preselected forum as inconvenient or less convenient for themselves
or 	their 	witnesses." 18 UMG 	further 	contends 	that, 	based 	on 	the 	foregoing,
Sarigumba's arguments related to Texas being a proper forum and the private
difficulties that transfer may impose "are not relevant in this context, even if [they]
15 See Independent Contractor Agreement, Document No. 21, Exhibit 2 at 9.
16 See Independent Contractor Agreement, Document No. 21, Exhibit 2 at 8 ("The
parties consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the federal and state courts located
in Hillsborough County, Florida, in any action arising out of or related to this agreement.").
17 Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue, Document No.
28 at 1.
18 Defendant's Reply Memorandum in Response to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion
to Transfer Venue, Document No 29 at 3 (quoting At!. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist.
Court. For W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49 (2013); Barnett v. Dynocorp Int'!, LLC, 831 F.3d
296, 300 (5th Cir. 2016)).
6
Case 4:25-cv-02578 Document 30 Filed 01/13/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 8

were somehow accurate which Defendant disputes."19 Based on the foregoing; the
United States Supreme Court's clear guidance that, in light of a forum selection
clause, only public factors of a transfer are to be considered; and the Fifth Circuit's
. clear guidance that a forum selection clause generally controls with respect to forum
non conveniens arguments, the Court finds that Sarigumba's contentions related to
private factors and the validity of the current venue are largely irrelevant with respect
to the present motion.
Based on the foregoing, and the United States Supreme Court's clear guidance
that a valid forum selection clause generally controls, the Court finds that this matter
should be transferred in accordance with the forum selection clause of the Contract.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue (Document No. 21) is
GRANTED. The Court further
ORDERS that this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida.
19 Defendant's Reply Memorandum in Response to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion
to Transfer Venue, Document No. 29 at 3.
7
Case 4:25-cv-02578 Document 30 Filed 01/13/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 8

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 	J3 day of January, 2026.
8
DAVID HITTNER
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-02578 Document 30 Filed 01/13/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 8