Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered Plaintiff, Guylaine Albice, a Massachusetts resident, filed this lawsuit against Defendants Supreme Artisan Foods, Inc. (“SAF”), a California corporation, and Olivier Fischer-Morelle, an individual residing in California. [Doc. No. 1-1]. On February 9, 2026, this action was removed to this court from Plymouth County Superior Court. Doc. No. 1 . On February 16, 2026, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. Doc. No. 7 . In their Reply memorandum in support of their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants asked that this court alternatively interpret their motion as a Rule 12(b)(3) motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). [Doc. No. 22 at 5]. Defendants stated that this Court has the authority to transfer this action consistent with the parties’ Stock Redemption Agreement that contains an unchallenged forum selection clause mandating that disputes arising out of the agreement be litigated in California. [Id. at 4]. On July 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Transfer the action to the Southern District of California, contending that this court has the authority to transfer pursuant to either 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Doc. No. 25 .
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that, “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) provides that a “district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.” Under either statute, the decision to transfer is left to the discretion of the court. See Turnley v. Banc of Am. Inv. Servs., Inc., 576 F. Supp. 2d 204, 217 (D. Mass. 2008); Cormier v. Fisher, 404 F. Supp. 2d 357, 363 (D. Me. 2005) (holding that the decision “to dismiss or transfer a case is left to the sound discretion of the trial court”). Additionally, both statutes provide for transfer “in the interest of justice.” “[T]he First Circuit has held that the phrase ‘in the interest of justice’ establishes ‘a presumption – albeit a rebuttable one – in favor of transfer.’” TargetSmart Holdings, LLC v. GHP Advisors, LLC, 366 F. Supp. 3d 195, 214 (D. Mass. 2019) (citing Britell v. United States, 318 F.3d 70, 73 (1st Cir. 2003)). Additionally, the Supreme Court has held that “§ 1404(a) transfer is the appropriate mechanism where a party invokes § 1406(a) or a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss asserting an improper forum... to enforce a contractual forum-selection clause that points to a different federal forum than where the case is currently being heard.” Lewis v. Hill, 683 F. Supp. 3d 137, 153 (D. Mass. 2023) (citing Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 59 (2013)).
Given that the parties agree that the forum selection clause mandates that the case be heard in California, and transfer would be in the interest of justice, Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer, Doc. No. 25 , is GRANTED and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No. 7 , is DENIED as moot. The action is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
(SP) [Transferred from Massachusetts on 7/7/2026.] (Entered: 07/07/2026)