Metoyer et al v. Mercedes-Benz U S A L L C et al

1
d
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
RAND S METOYER ET AL,
Plaintiff
CIVIL DOCKET NO. 1:24-CV-01248
VERSUS 	JUDGE DRELL
MERCEDES-BENZ U S A L L C ET
AL,
Defendants
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), or in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (ECF No. 16) filed by Defendant Ultimate Toys, Inc. ("Ultimate
Toys"). Plaintiffs Rand S. Metoyer and Darlene Metoyer ("Plaintiffs") oppose the
Motion (Doc. 30). Because the parties are bound by a mandatory forum-selection
clause, Ultimate Toys's alternative request to transfer venue should be GRANTED.
Plaintiffs' claims against Ultimate Toys should be SEVERED and TRANSFERRED
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Ultimate Toys's
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should thus be DENIED AS MOOT.
I. 	Background
Plaintiffs 	bought 	a 	customized 	2024 	Mercedes-Benz 	Sprinter 	van 	(the
"Vehicle") from Ultimate Toys (Doc. 1). Ultimate Toys is an Ohio corporation
headquartered in Loveland, Ohio (Doc. 16-1). Plaintiffs reside in Louisiana (Doc. 1).
Case: 1:26-cv-00362-MRB Doc #: 40 Filed: 03/16/26 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
To initiate the purchase, Plaintiffs contacted Ultimate Toys in Ohio (Doc. 16-
1). The parties negotiated by phone and email (Doc. 16-1). On September 7, 2023,
Plaintiffs 	and 	Ultimate 	Toys 	executed 	a 	"Purchase 	Agreement" 	via 	electronic
signature (Doc. 16-1, Ex. 1). The Purchase Agreement contains a forum-selection
clause, which provides: "Any action brought by either party against the other in any
court, whether federal or state, may be brought only within courts located in
Hamilton County, Ohio. The parties hereby submit to the exercise of personal
jurisdiction by these courts and waive any defense of lack of personal jurisdiction or
improper venue for the purpose of carrying out this provision" (Doc. 16-1, Ex. 1, § 22).
Following the Vehicle's delivery to Louisiana, Plaintiffs filed suit in this Court
against Ultimate Toys and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC ("MBUSA") (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs
allege the Vehicle suffers from redhibitory defects (Doc. 1). Redhibition is a contract-
based remedy under Louisiana law. These claims arise directly from the Purchase
Agreement. Ultimate Toys filed the instant Motion, arguing the Court lacks personal
jurisdiction over it under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) (Doc. 16). Alternatively, Ultimate
Toys asks the Court to enforce the forum-selection clause and transfer Plaintiffs'
claims against it to the Southern District of Ohio under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Doc. 16).
MBUSA answered the lawsuit and did not join the Motion (Doc. 6).
II. 	Law and Analysis
A. 	The Court may decide venue before personal jurisdiction.
The Court has discretion to address venue before personal jurisdiction.
See
Leroy v. Great W. United Corp., 443 U.S. 173, 180 (1979) (superseded by statute);
see
Case: 1:26-cv-00362-MRB Doc #: 40 Filed: 03/16/26 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
also In re LimitNone, LLC, 551 F.3d 572, 576 (7th Cir. 2008). When a valid forum-
selection clause dictates transfer, deciding venue first promotes judicial economy and
avoids unnecessary constitutional analysis of personal jurisdiction.
B. 	The forum-selection clause is mandatory and enforceable.
A forum-selection clause is enforced through a motion to transfer venue under
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Tex.,
571 U.S. 49, 59 (2013). When a contract contains a valid forum-selection clause, it
reflects the parties' agreement on the most appropriate forum.
Id. at 63. A valid
forum-selection clause should be given controlling weight in all but the most
exceptional cases.
Id. at 60.
In analyzing a forum-selection clause under § 1404(a), the plaintiff's choice of
forum merits no weight.
Id. at 63. The court considers only public-interest factors.
Id.
at 64. The party defying the clause bears the burden of showing that public-interest
factors overwhelmingly disfavor transfer.
Id. at 67.
A forum-selection clause is presumptively valid.
Weber v. PACT XPP Tech.,
AG, 811 F.3d 758, 773 (5th Cir. 2016). It is mandatory if it contains clear language
specifying that litigation must occur in the designated forum.
Id. at 768. Here, the
clause states that "[a]ny action brought by either party against the other . . . may be
brought only within courts located in Hamilton County, Ohio" (Doc. 16-1, Ex. 1, § 22).
The word "only" makes the clause mandatory.
Plaintiffs argue the clause does not apply because the Purchase Agreement
was "fulfilled" (Doc. 30). These arguments lack merit. The clause broadly applies to
Case: 1:26-cv-00362-MRB Doc #: 40 Filed: 03/16/26 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
"[a]ny action brought by either party against the other" (Doc. 16-1, Ex. 1, § 22). Under
Fifth Circuit precedent, such broad clauses apply to all claims arising out of the
parties' relationship.
See Marinechance Shipping, Ltd. v. Sebastian, 143 F.3d 216,
222 (5th Cir. 1998). Plaintiffs' redhibition claims stem directly from the purchase
transaction. 	Plaintiffs 	primarily 	raise 	private-interest 	arguments, 	which 	are
irrelevant when a valid forum-selection clause exists.
Atl. Marine, 571 U.S. at 64;
Herman v. Cataphora, Inc., 730 F.3d 460, 466 (5th Cir. 2013).
Although Darlene Metoyer did not sign the Purchase Agreement, she is bound
by the forum-selection clause under the doctrine of direct-benefits equitable estoppel.
A non-signatory is bound when they "knowingly exploit the agreement" containing
the clause or assert entitlement to benefits that would not exist but for the agreement.
See Hellenic Inv. Fund, Inc. v. Det Norske Veritas, 464 F.3d 514, 517–20 (5th Cir.
2006). Here, Mrs. Metoyer’s claims for redhibition and breach of warranty are based
directly on the Purchase Agreement; she cannot seek the benefits of the purchase
while disclaiming the forum-selection clause in the contract that facilitated it.
C. 	Plaintiffs' 	claims 	against 	Ultimate 	Toys 	should 	be 	severed 	and
transferred.
MBUSA is not a party to the Purchase Agreement. Ultimate Toys requested
transfer of "only the claims against it" (Doc. 16). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21, a district
court has broad discretion to sever and transfer claims to a more appropriate forum.
In re Rolls Royce Corp., 775 F.3d 671, 680 (5th Cir. 2014);
Defense Distributed v.
Bruck, 30 F.4th 414, 435 (5th Cir. 2022).
Case: 1:26-cv-00362-MRB Doc #: 40 Filed: 03/16/26 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
Severance and transfer are appropriate unless the non-transferring defendant
is indispensable.
In re Rolls Royce Corp., 775 F.3d at 681;
Buc-ee's, Ltd. v. Bucks,
Inc., 262 F. Supp. 3d 453, 466 (S.D. Tex. 2017). MBUSA is not an indispensable party
to the claims against Ultimate Toys. Severing the claims enforces the valid clause
without improperly binding MBUSA. Therefore, claims against Ultimate Toys should
be transferred to the Southern District of Ohio. The motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(2) is consequently moot.
III. 	Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Ultimate Toys's
Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. 16) be
GRANTED as to the alternative request to transfer venue and DENIED AS MOOT
as to the motion to dismiss.
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs' claims against Ultimate Toys be
SEVERED and TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), a party may file
written objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service,
unless the Court grants an extension of time to file objections under Fed. R. Civ. P.
6(b). 	A party may also respond to another party’s objections to this Report and
Recommendation within 14 days of service of those objections, again unless the Court
grants an extension of time to file a response to objections.
Case: 1:26-cv-00362-MRB Doc #: 40 Filed: 03/16/26 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

6
No other briefs may be filed without leave of court, which will only be granted
for good cause. 	A party’s failure to timely file written objections to this Report and
Recommendation will bar a party from later challenging factual or legal conclusions
adopted by the District Judge, except if the challenge asserts “plain error.”
SIGNED on Monday, March 16, 2026.
_______________________________________
JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:26-cv-00362-MRB Doc #: 40 Filed: 03/16/26 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>