New Hope Wesleyan Church v. Ecclesia Construction Company, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
New Hope Wesleyan Church, )
)
Plaintiff, ) ORDER GRANTING
) CHIEF INDUSTRIES’
vs. ) MOTION TO TRANSFER
Ecclesia Construction Company, LLC, )
d/b/a/ Ecclesia Building Strategies, )
)
Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case. No.1:23-cv-105
)
Chief Industries, Inc., d/b/a Chief )
Buildings; Hite Architecture, P.A.; )
Shultz Engineering Group, P.C.; )
Ironhidez Construction, LLC f/k/a )
Froemming Construction; and )
Commercial Exterior Specialties, LLC, )
)
Third-Party Defendants. )
Before the Court is Third-Party Defendant Chief Industries “Chief Industries” motion to
dismiss or transfer filed on August 11, 2023. See Doc. Nos. 33 and 35. Defendant and Third-Party
Plaintiff Ecclesia Construction Company, LLC, (“Ecclesia”) filed a response in opposition to the
motion on September 1, 2023. See Doc. No. 37. Chief Industries filed a reply brief on September
15, 2023. See Doc. No. 40. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to transfer is granted.
I. BACKGROUND
In May of 2013, the Plaintiff New Hope Wesleyan Church (“Church”) contracted with
Ecclesia to construct a large addition on its church property located in Williston, North Dakota.
1
Case 1:23-cv-00105-DLH-CRH Document 53 Filed 04/16/24 Page 1 of 5

Ecclesia, serving as a general contractor for the project, entered into numerous subcontract
agreements with various contractors and suppliers, including Chief Industries, to assist with the
project. Pursuant to the contract between Ecclesia and Chief Industries, Chief Industries was to
design and manufacture pre-engineered aspects of the project and to supply certain materials in
exchange for payment from Ecclesia. Chief Industries provided building components to Ecclesia
for use in the project. The project was completed in June of 2015 and within months there were
reports of numerous construction defects. The Church hired third parties to undertake repairs which
were completed in 2022.
In May of 2023, the Church sued Ecclesia relating to construction work it performed on the
Project. On May 30, 2023, Ecclesia removed the action from the State District Court of Williams
County, North Dakota, to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Eccleasia is a North Carolina
LLC with two members, both of whom reside in South Carolina. Chief Industries is a Deleware
corporation with its principal place of business in Grand Island, Nebraska. Ecclesia then brought
third-party claims against Chief Industries and four other subcontractors associated with the project.
The Agreement to Purchase between Ecclesia and Chief Industries contains the following
choice of law and forum selection provisions:
This agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with the internal
laws of the State of Nebraska, USA. Any legal action or proceeding arising under
or with respect to this Agreement shall be brought only in the district courts of
Nebraska, or the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, and, by
execution and delivery of this Agreement, that Chief and [Ecclesia] each hereby
accepts for itself and in respect of its property, generally and unconditionally, the
jurisdiction of the aforesaid courts and hereby irrevocable waive any objection
thereto, including without limitation, personal jurisdiction or forum non conveniens.
2
Case 1:23-cv-00105-DLH-CRH Document 53 Filed 04/16/24 Page 2 of 5

See Doc. No. 34-4, p. 45. Chief Industries has filed a motion to dismiss or transfer of the third-party
claim against it to the District for Nebraska based upon the forum selection clause in the contract.
Ecclesia opposes the motion.
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A forum selection clause may be enforced through a motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a). Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 59 (2013).
Section 1404(a) provides that“for the convenience of the 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The “overarching consideration under § 1404(a) is
whether a transfer would promote the interests of justice.” ” Atl. Marine Const. Co., 571 U.S. at
63. The “proper application of § 1404(a) requires that a forum-selection clause be given controlling
weight in all but the most exceptional cases.” Atl. Marine Const. Co., 571 U.S. at 59–60 (internal
quotations omitted). When a contract contains a valid forum selection clause, the court should
ordinarily transfer the case to the forum specified in the clause. Id. at 62. The burden is on the
plaintiff to show why transfer to the forum the parties bargained for is unwarranted. Id. at 63. In
doing so, private interest factors are irrelevant because the parties have preselected a forum. Id. at
64. Only public interest factors should be considered. Id. The public interest factors include: (1)
administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the forum’s interest in having localized
controversies decided at home; (3) the interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that
is at home with the law that must govern the action; (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems in
conflict of laws, or in the application of foreign law; and (5) the unfairness of burdening citizens in
3
Case 1:23-cv-00105-DLH-CRH Document 53 Filed 04/16/24 Page 3 of 5

an unrelated forum with jury duty. Id. at 63, n. 6; Staal v. Scherping Enterprises, Inc., 1:18-CV-127,
2018 WL 11150460, at *4 (D.N.D. Dec. 12, 2018). The public interest factors will rarely defeat a
transfer motion. Atl. Marine Const. Co., 571 U.S. at 63.
In this case, it is undisputed that the forum selection clause is valid. Turning to the public
interest factors, the Court finds this is not one of those unusual cases where the forum selection
clause should not control. The first factor, court administration, slightly favors denying transfer as
it will result in two cases going forward rather than one. However, neither the District of North
Dakota nor the District of Nebraska is facing a judicial emergency and the per judge caseload
statistics are similar. The second and third factors favor transfer. The choice of law provision calls
for the application of Nebraska law and transfer would allow the case to proceed in Nebraska with
a Nebraska jury which is what the parties bargained for in their contract. In addition, the components
Chief Industries sold to Ecclesia were manufactured in Nebraska, which is Chief Industries’ principal
place of business. The fourth factor weighs slightly in favor of transfer as the District of Nebraska
is no doubt more familiar with Nebraska law than the District of North Dakota, although the District
of North Dakota regularly applies the law of other states. The jury duty factor is neutral. Both
districts have ties to the litigation as the project was located in North Dakota while the components
Chief Industries provided were manufactured in Nebraska where Chief Industries is located.
Ecclesia does not have strong ties to either North Dakota or Nebraska as it is a North Carolina LLC
whose two members both live in South Carolina. The Court concludes Ecclesia has not met its
burden of demonstrating the public interest factors overwhelming disfavor transfer.
4
Case 1:23-cv-00105-DLH-CRH Document 53 Filed 04/16/24 Page 4 of 5

III. CONCLUSION
Upon careful consideration of the all the relevant factors, the Court concludes the interests
of justice require the forum selection clause be given full force and effect. As the forum selection
clause specifies the district in which all disputes should be venued, the Court DENIES the motion
to dismiss (Doc. No. 33) and GRANTS the motion transfer (Doc. No. 35). The Clerk of Court shall
transfer Ecclesia’s third-party complaint against Chief Industries to the United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 16th day of April, 2024.
/s/ Daniel L. Hovland
Daniel L. Hovland, District Judge
United States District Court
5
Case 1:23-cv-00105-DLH-CRH Document 53 Filed 04/16/24 Page 5 of 5