Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Plastic Suppliers, Inc v. Cenveo

January 19, 2011

PLASTIC SUPPLIERS, INC., PLAINTIFF,
v.
CENVEO, INC., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: David E. Peebles U.S. Magistrate Judge

DECISION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Plastic Suppliers Inc. ("PSI") has commenced this action against defendant Cenveo, Inc. ("Cenveo"), alleging breach of contact and asserting diversity of jurisdiction as a basis for this court's jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. PSI maintains that Cenveo entered into a contract to purchase polystyrene and polyactic films from the plaintiff for use in windowed mailing envelopes, but has since wrongfully repudiated the agreement.

Neither the parties nor the operative facts giving rise to plaintiff's claims has any material connection with this district.*fn1 Yet, PSI brought suit here based on a forum selection provision within the contract at issue, in which both parties agreed that any claim related to the agreement must be brought in a state or federal court located in New York, and its assessment that the action can be litigated efficiently and economically in this district.

Currently pending before the court is Cenveo's motion requesting that the action be transferred to the Southern District of New York, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Consideration of the factors informing the analysis of whether a transfer of the action is appropriate under that section weighs in favor of granting the motion, though not appreciably. Nonetheless, because Cenveo has consented to have the action brought here, and the Southern District of New York also has little, if any, meaningful connection with the action, I find no basis to disturb plaintiff's choice of forum, and will therefore deny the pending motion.

I. BACKGROUND

PSI is a New Jersey corporation with headquarters in Columbus, Ohio. The plaintiff is one of only three domestic manufacturers of polystyrene films for use in mailing envelopes. Plaintiff has a number of manufacturing facilities throughout the United States; none of those, however, is located in New York, although it does operate a manufacturing plant in relatively-nearby Mount Laurel, New Jersey.*fn2

Defendant Cenveo is a Colorado corporation with principal corporate offices located in Stamford, Connecticut, and is one of only four major domestic envelope manufacturers that purchase polystyrene and polyactic acid envelope films in the United States. Like PSI, Cenveo similarly operates several manufacturing plants, including one located in Jersey City, New Jersey.*fn3

In or about the summer of 2009 Cenveo began purchasing plastic window films from PSI. Prior to that time defendant acquired the bulk of its plastic window films from DOW Chemical, Inc., one of plaintiff's competitors. Following negotiations, the parties ultimately entered into a contract in or about November of 2009 under which Cenveo agreed to purchase eighty percent of its film requirements from plaintiff through 2010, and ninety-eight percent thereafter for the remaining life of the contract, which was to expire on December 31, 2012. Included within the contract was a provision granting an option to Gould Paper Corporation ("Gould") to purchase products from PSI on behalf of Cenveo.

The November 2009 supply agreement was later superseded by another executed in February 2010 and containing terms identical to those of its predecessor. Under both contracts the parties reached the following agreement with regard to both jurisdiction and the applicable law to govern any disputes arising under them:

Section 10. Governing Law; Jurisdiction. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, without regard to the conflicts of law rules of such state. Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be brought exclusively in the state or federal courts located in the State of New York, the jurisdiction of which the parties hereto irrevocably consent to.*fn4

At some point during the course of performance under the terms of these two agreements a dispute arose between the parties concerning the quality of plaintiff's product. According to the plaintiff, Cenveo has disavowed the contract and turned to a competitor to supply its envelope film, and with the exception of small purchases of a type of film not available from other suppliers, Cenveo has not placed any orders under the agreements since April of 2010.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff commenced this action on April 30, 2010. Since that time

issue has been joined, a conference has been conducted by the court in connection with the action pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and a Uniform Pretrial Scheduling Order ("UPSO") has been ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.