Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
3 I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................... 1
4 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 3
5 III. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 9
6 A. The Parties' Consistent Agreement To New Jersey Venue
Supports Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). .................................... 9
7
B. The Typical § 1404(a) Factors Also Require Transfer
8 to New Jersey. ..................................................................................... 11
9 1. An Adequate Alternative Forum Exists. .................................. 12
10 2. The Private and Public Factors Favor Transfer. ....................... 12
11 (a) Subaru and Key Witnesses Reside in New Jersey. ........ 12
12 (b) New Jersey is a More Convenient Forum. ..................... 13
13 (c) Relevant Evidence is Located in New Jersey. ............... 13
14 (d) Unwilling Witnesses Cannot be Compelled to
Testify in California. ...................................................... 13
15
(e) The Cost of Bringing Witnesses to Trial in
16 California is Higher Than New Jersey. .......................... 13
17 (f) The Enforceability of the Judgment is not an Issue. ...... 14
18 (g) The Court’s Familiarity with Governing Law is
19 Neutral. ........................................................................... 14
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 Page(s)
3 Cases
4 Ablett v. Clauson,
43 Cal.2d 280 (Cal. 1954) ...................................................................................... 16
5
Aguilar v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Union Local #10,
6 966 F.2d 443 (9th Cir. 1992) .................................................................................. 18
7 Allstar Mktg. Group, LLC v. Your Store Online, LLC,
8 666 F.Supp.2d 1109 (C.D. Cal. 2009) ................................................................. 3, 9
1 dealing, and makes clear their intent that any disputes concerning any alleged
2 breach of Subaru’s agreement to sponsor Alpha’s rallycross series must be litigated
3 in New Jersey. In its present Complaint, Alpha makes reference to core discussions
4 about whether Subaru and other prior sponsors would reach a binding agreement to
5 participate in the 2018 racing series, which transpired in Detroit, Michigan, not
6 California. Subaru’s principal witnesses concerning these discussions live and
7 work in or near New Jersey. Transfer of this case to the U.S. District Court for
8 the District of New Jersey is accordingly in the interest of justice pursuant to
9 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
10 With respect to the merits of Alpha's claim of an “oral” sponsorship contract,
11 the Complaint's suggestion that “the entirety of terms of the contracts” between
12 Alpha and Subaru for sponsorship agreements -- agreements in which Subaru
13 invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in return for specific and detailed
14 marketing opportunities -- “often” “are not reduced to formal writing” is a
15 fabrication and a sham. Subaru has not entered into oral sponsorship agreements
16 with Alpha, and its written sponsorship agreements, as one would expect, make clear
17 that no purported “understandings” are binding “unless set forth in a document duly
18 executed by or on behalf of” the parties.
19 Notable is the Complaint’s abject failure to plead the alleged “oral contract’s”
20 material terms, including the failure to state how much Subaru supposedly agreed to
21 pay for its 2018 sponsorship. Although preliminary discussions took place, no oral
22 contract was formed and no written contract between Subaru and Alpha was
23 prepared or executed in connection with the 2018 series because -- quite simply --
24 Subaru, following Honda and Volkswagen, was unable to reach terms for an
25 agreement with Mr. Dyne for 2018. The Complaint’s ancillary claims for
26 promissory estoppel, fraud and tortious interference are also based on knowingly
27 false allegations, fail to allege material elements of the claims, and are appropriate
28 for dismissal. Indisputable factual chronology establishes that contrary to Dyne's
2
SUBARU’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO:
(i) TRANSFER OR DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE; (ii) DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7 Filed 04/06/18 Page 10 of 29 Page ID #:41
1 from $ in 2017 to $ in 2018. (Weir Decl. ¶ 11, Exh. C.) It was this
2 proposed change to the material terms of the contract, along with other material
3 changes to the 2018 GRC series itself, that caused Honda, Volkswagen and other
4 sponsors who participated in the so-called “Supercar” events to reject Alpha’s
5 proposed sponsorship agreement and withdraw from the 2018 series. Given
6 Honda and Volkswagen’s departure, Subaru felt the only prudent business decision
7 was to reject Alpha’s proposal and withdraw from the 2018 series as well.
8 (See Weir Decl. ¶¶ 7-20, Exh. H.)
9 The 2017 GRC series involved twelve races that took place in a number of
10 cities throughout the United States and in Canada, with two races taking place in
4
11 New Jersey. (Weir Decl. ¶ 6.) Discussions between Colin Dyne, for Alpha, and
12 Subaru, represented by Robert Weir, concerning the 2018 GRC season began at the
13 race in Seattle, Washington in September 2017. (Id. ¶ 7.) The next month, at the
14 final race in Los Angeles on October 14, 2017, Mr. Weir spoke with drivers and
15 representatives of Honda and Volkswagen, who stated their intentions to participate
16 in the 2018 GRC season, although some expressed concerns about the cost of
17 participation. (Id. ¶ 8.) Based in part on those confirmations, and Mr. Weir’s
18 understanding that the terms for the 2018 series would not materially differ from
19 those agreed to in 2017, Mr. Weir expressed Subaru’s interest in participating in
20 the 2018 GRC season. (Compl. ¶ 35-37; Weir Decl. ¶ 9.) Two days later, on
21 October 16, 2017, Subaru issued a post-event press release from its corporate
22 offices in New Jersey stating that two of Subaru’s drivers would return for the
23 2018 season. (Compl. ¶¶ 38-39; Weir Decl. ¶ 10.)
24
25
4
The 2017 GRC series schedule was as follows: Round 1: Memphis, TN (April 29);
26 Round 2: Louisville, KY (May 21); Rounds 3 & 4: Thompson, CT (June 3, June 4);
27 Rounds 5 & 6: Canada (June 17 & 18); Round 7: Indianapolis, IN (July 9);
Rounds 8 & 9: Atlantic City, NJ (August 12 & 13); Rounds 10 & 11: Seattle, WA
28 (Sept. 9 & 10); Round 12: Los Angeles, CA (October 14).
5
SUBARU’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO:
(i) TRANSFER OR DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE; (ii) DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7 Filed 04/06/18 Page 13 of 29 Page ID #:44
1 On December 18, 2017, Honda notified Colin Dyne and Colby Rodriguez
2 at Alpha, and Subaru and Volkswagen’s representatives, that Honda would not be
3 participating in the 2018 series. (Weir. Decl. ¶ 15.)
4 On January 16, 2018, an in-person meeting of representatives of Alpha,
5 Subaru, Volkswagen, and other race teams took place in Detroit, Michigan.
6 (Compl. ¶ 40; Weir Decl. ¶ 16). During that meeting, Alpha presented its plans for
7 the 2018 season, including an unverified car count, a tentative schedule, and
8 manufacturer’s media package offering. (Weir Decl. ¶ 17). Representatives of
9 Subaru and Volkswagen each expressed concerns about the shocking increase in
10 sponsorship fees and doubts about the projected car count, given that Honda had
11 withdrawn from the 2018 series. (Id.)
12 Contrary to Alpha’s false allegation -- that during the meeting in Detroit
13 Subaru “agreed to run a third car in 2018” “in exchange for a lower price for
14 participation in the 2018 series” (Compl. ¶¶ 42-43) -- Alpha’s representatives
15 insisted that Subaru and the other manufacturers compete with additional cars to
16 compensate for the smaller field, but did not offer a concession in the form of
17 reduced sponsorship fees. (Weir Decl. ¶ 17.) Ultimately, near the end of the
18 meeting, Volkswagen’s representatives stated that Volkswagen would not be
19 participating in the 2018 GRC season. (Compl. ¶ 59; Weir Decl. ¶ 17.) In response,
20 Subaru’s representative stated that it could not commit to the series at that time.
21 (Compl. ¶ 58; Weir Decl. ¶ 17.)
22 On January 22, 2018, Alpha sent Subaru a new “Follow Up” proposal which
23 provided yet another set of proposed terms for the 2018 GRC series. In that
24 proposal, Alpha recognized the legitimate “concern for the significant increase in
25 the proposed” fees for 2018 and offered to reduce the total fees to $
26 “by removing certain contents of the agreement, while also devaluing the overall
27 inventory.…” (Weir Decl. ¶ 18; Exh. G at p. 2.) Alpha asserted, however, that
28 “[t]his reduction comes with the understanding that the overall package will
7
SUBARU’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO:
(i) TRANSFER OR DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE; (ii) DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7 Filed 04/06/18 Page 15 of 29 Page ID #:46
1 increase starting in 2019.” (Id.) Alpha also admitted that the “shocking
2 news of Honda stepping back from the series” had “made things challenging for the
3 key teams/sponsors/drivers” and outlined a new car count with a list of several other
4 teams that would participate in the 2018 series to reach the “minimum of 10
5 supercars competing at every event.” (Id.; Exh. G at p. 3.) The proposal also stated
6 -- again belying Plaintiff’s false allegation that Subaru “committed itself to run
7 a third car in 2018” (Compl. ¶¶ 42-43) -- that Subaru would have the “option” to
8 run “2-3 cars” in the 2018 series. (Weir Decl. ¶ 18, Exh. G at p. 3.)
9 After receiving this new proposal, Subaru reached out to the identified
10 Supercar team stakeholders to confirm if they would in fact be participating in 2018.
11 However, Subaru was informed that, like Honda and Volkswagen, all but two of the
12 other Supercar team stakeholders were withdrawing from the 2018 GRC series.
13 (Weir Decl. ¶ 18.) Subaru had also received several reports that drivers and vendors
14 associated with Alpha’s GRC events had not been paid or paid timely (Id. ¶ 19.)
15 A few days later, on January 26, 2018, Mr. Weir informed Plaintiff by
16 e-mail that:
17 Regrettably, Subaru of America has decided to decline
the GRC MFG offering for 2018. We appreciate GRC’s
18 efforts to make concessions, but following the recent exit
19 of other MFG-supported programs from the series and
the concern of total supercar entries for 2018, we feel
20 there’s too much instability to present our factory racing
program for this season.
21
We respect this is tough news, and we wish the series
22 best of luck.
23
With Regards,
24
Rob.
25
26 (Weir Decl. ¶ 20, Exh. H).
27 ////
28 ////
8
SUBARU’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO:
(i) TRANSFER OR DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE; (ii) DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7 Filed 04/06/18 Page 16 of 29 Page ID #:47
1 III. ARGUMENT
2 A. The Parties' Consistent Agreement To New Jersey Venue
3 Supports Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
4 Section 1404(a) provides that “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses,
5 in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other
6 district … where it might have been brought or to any district … to which all parties
7 have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “This provision gives a district court broad
8 discretion to transfer a case to another district where venue is also proper.”
9 Allstar Mktg. Group, LLC, 666 F.Supp.2d at 1130 (citing Sparling v. Hoffman
10 Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 639 (9th Cir. 1998)). District courts are required to
11 “adjudicate motions for transfer [of venue] according to an ‘individualized, case-by-
12 case consideration of convenience and fairness.’” Id. (quoting Jones v. GNC
13 Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000)).
14 In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that a forum-selection clause may
15 support a motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Atl. Marine Constr.
16 Co. Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 571 U.S. 49, 134 S. Ct. 568, 581 (2013). The Court
17 made clear that “[w]hen the parties have agreed to a valid forum-selection clause,
18 a district court should ordinarily transfer the case to the forum specified in that
19 clause. Only under extraordinary circumstances unrelated to the convenience of
20 the parties should a § 1404(a) motion be denied.” Id. The Court further instructed
21 that the plaintiff, “as the party defying the forum-selection clause … bears the
22 burden of establishing that transfer to the forum for which the parties bargained is
23 unwarranted.” Id. This burden is high: as this Court recently explained, it
24 typically requires “evidence submitted by the party opposing enforcement of the
25 [forum-selection] clause to establish fraud, undue influence, overweening
26 bargaining power, or such serious inconvenience in litigating in the selected forum
27 so as to deprive that party of a meaningful day in court.” Jocer Enterprises, Inc. v.
28 Compass Constr., Inc., No. 17-cv-01219-MWF (KKx), 2017 WL 4011134 at *2
9
SUBARU’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO:
(i) TRANSFER OR DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE; (ii) DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7 Filed 04/06/18 Page 17 of 29 Page ID #:48
1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2017) (quoting Pelleport Inv’rs, Inc. v. Budco Quality
2 Theatres, Inc., 741 F.2d 273, 280 (9th Cir. 1984)).
3 Here, throughout Alpha's and Subaru's dealings with respect to the GRC
4 racing sponsorships, Alpha repeatedly and consistently agreed that any disputes
5 between the parties would be submitted to the “jurisdiction of the New Jersey state
6 and federal courts … and that the exclusive venue for resolution of such disputes
7 shall be state or federal courts located in … New Jersey.” (Weir Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. A
8 § 18; Exh. B § 18.) The gravamen of Alpha’s complaint is a claim for “breach of
9 oral contract” involving, effectively, an alleged promise by Subaru to continue
10 sponsorship of the GRC series in 2018. Thus, by Plaintiff’s own admission, and
11 the core contention by which Plaintiff seeks to maintain this action, the parties’
12 prior course of dealing in their written sponsorship agreements, including the
6
13 mandatory New Jersey venue clause, is necessarily implicated. Because there is
14 no set of circumstances here -- much less “extraordinary circumstances” -- that
15 would justify abrogating Plaintiff’s consistent agreement to litigate any disputes in
16 state or federal courts in New Jersey, this entire action should be transferred to the
17 U.S. District for the District of New Jersey. See, e.g., Almont Ambulatory Surgery
18 Center, LLC v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., No. CV-14-02139-MWF (VBKx),
19 2015 WL 12733443 at *7 (C.D. Cal. April 10, 2015) (“Notably, § 1404 allows
20 only for the transfer of an entire ‘civil action.’”) (citing Chrysler Credit Corp. v.
21 Country Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509, 1518 (10th Cir. 1991) (“Section 1404(a)
22 only authorizes the transfer of an entire action, not individual claims.”))
23 ////
24 ////
25 ////
26
6
Even assuming that an oral agreement existed to extend or renew the Subaru
27 sponsorship for 2018, nothing has been alleged to suggest that the New Jersey venue
for resolution of disputes concerning that agreement has been changed.
28
10
SUBARU’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO:
(i) TRANSFER OR DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE; (ii) DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7 Filed 04/06/18 Page 18 of 29 Page ID #:49
1 refuse to agree to anything to which the other party will agree, it is impossible for
2 the law to affix any obligation to such a promise.”)
3 Plaintiff fails to plead that a contract was formed with respect to Subaru’s
4 participation in the 2018 season. First, Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Weir made
5 statements in October 2017 to the effect that Subaru’s goal was to return to the
6 GRC and win the manufacturer’s title in 2018. (Compl. ¶¶ 39–40.) Those
7 statements do not establish a binding contract. They were made before the written
8 2017 sponsorship agreement had expired, contain no statements demonstrating an
9 exchange of consideration, and do not state that the parties had reached an
10 agreement for the 2018 season. (Id.) At most, those comments were an
11 aspirational expression of interest that cannot give rise to a contract. See Language
12 Door Inc. v. MyAsia LLC, No. SA CV13-01220-JVS (RNBs), 2014 WL 12690753,
13 at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2014) (“It is also well-established that accepting an offer to
14 make a contract in the future, the terms of which are subject to future negotiation,
8
15 does not create a valid contract.”).
16 Next, Plaintiff alleges that at the January 16, 2018 meeting in Detroit,
17 Subaru “agreed” and “committed itself to run a third car in the 2018 [GRC] series.”
18 (Compl. ¶¶ 41-42.) However, the Complaint’s conspicuous lack of details with
19 respect to the material terms of that supposed “oral contract” belie that allegation.
20 For example, no details are pleaded with respect to the most important terms that
21 would be expected of such an agreement, including the amount of the sponsorship
22 fee that Subaru purportedly agreed to pay, when that payment was due, the
23 duration of the agreement, the effective date of agreement, or when Subaru was
24 required to perform under the oral agreement. (See Compl. ¶¶ 40–43.) Without
25
8
26 ofSee also 1 Arthur L. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 1.15 (rev. ed. 2005) (“A statement
intention is the mere expression of a state of mind, put in such form as neither to
27 invite nor to justify action in reliance by another person.”); Restatement (Second) of
Contracts § 2 cmt. f (“A promise must be distinguished from a statement of opinion or
28 a mere prediction of future events.)
17
SUBARU’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO:
(i) TRANSFER OR DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE; (ii) DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7 Filed 04/06/18 Page 25 of 29 Page ID #:56
1 pleading these material terms, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for an enforceable
2 oral agreement, particularly given the parties’ history of executing detailed written
3 agreements setting forth such express terms.
4 2. Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim for Promissory Estoppel.
5 “The elements of a promissory estoppel claim are (1) a promise clear and
6 unambiguous in its terms; (2) reliance by the party to whom the promise is made;
7 (3) [the] reliance must be both reasonable and foreseeable; and (4) the party
8 asserting the estoppel must be injured by his reliance.” Moore v. Wells Fargo Bank,
9 N.A., No. 14CV1342-GPC-RBB, 2014 WL 4355585, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2014).
10 Plaintiff cannot assert that its alleged reliance on any "promise" by Subaru to
11 sponsor the 2018 series was "reasonable," when Plaintiff admittedly changed the
12 material terms of that sponsorship after the alleged "promise" was made. Subaru,
13 at the time it made any alleged "commitments" to the 2018 series, had no
14 knowledge that Dyne planned to increase the price of that sponsorship to $
15 (an increase of more than percent), nor that other sponsors critical to the market
16 value of the race would withdraw following that price increase.
17 Where a promise is “vague, general or of indeterminate application,” the
18 promise “is not enforceable.” Aguilar v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Union Local #10,
19 966 F.2d 443, 446 (9th Cir. 1992). For that reason, Plaintiff’s allegation that
20 “Subaru promised … that it would participate in the … GRC 2018 series and run
21 three cars in the 2018 series” (Compl. ¶ 72) cannot support a claim for a
22 promissory estoppel. This allegation does not constitute a clear and unambiguous
23 promise and lacks the specific terms necessary to be enforceable. At most, the
24 parties’ communications about the 2018 series represent statements of intent made
25 during ongoing contract negotiations which do not create an enforceable promise.
26 See J.B. Enterprises Int’l, L.L.C. v. Sid & Marty Krofft Pictures Corp., No. CV 02-
27 7779 CBM (SHX), 2003 WL 21037837, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2003) (“The
28 Court finds that the Letter of Intent did not contain a clear and unambiguous offer
18
SUBARU’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO:
(i) TRANSFER OR DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE; (ii) DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7 Filed 04/06/18 Page 26 of 29 Page ID #:57
1 to complete the stock purchase, because it contemplated that the parties would
2 negotiate the Purchase Agreement.”).
3 3. Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim for Fraud.
4 The elements of fraud are (1) misrepresentation, (2) knowledge of falsity,
5 (3) intent to defraud, (4) plaintiff’s justifiable reliance, and (5) damages. Lazar v.
6 Superior Court, 12 Cal.4th 631, 638 (1996). Under Rule 9(b), a party alleging
7 fraud must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud. Fed. R.
8 Civ. P. 9(b); Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2003).
9 This must include more than just the facts necessary to identify the transaction, and
10 should include the “who, what, when, where, and how of the misconduct charged.”
11 Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2009). A mere
12 “formulaic recitation” of the general elements of a fraud claim does not satisfy
13 Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
14 Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to satisfy these pleading requirements. While
15 there are numerous details omitted from the Complaint which are necessary to
16 plead with specificity a fraud claim under Rule 9, Plaintiff’s failure to plead even
17 the most basic term of any representation by Subaru -- including the price that
18 Subaru purportedly agreed to pay to sponsor the 2018 event -- requires dismissal of
19 the fraud claim under the basic pleadings requirements of Rule 8. Ironically, the
20 facts suggest that it was Colin Dyne, not Subaru, who engaged in a fraudulent
21 "bait and switch" by encouraging Subaru to publicly endorse a 2018 series without
22 Dyne's disclosure of the myriad issues that Subaru needed to know before making
23 an informed decision. These include a more than percent sponsorship price
24 increase; the loss of other critical sponsors; and failure to timely pay vendors
25 which placed a cloud over the legitimacy of the event.
26 Plaintiff’s Complaint fails under Rule 9 because there are no specific
27 allegations as to “what” specifically was said by Subaru that was knowingly false.
28 Nor are there allegations about “how” Alpha could have relied on representations
19
SUBARU’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO:
(i) TRANSFER OR DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE; (ii) DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7 Filed 04/06/18 Page 27 of 29 Page ID #:58
1 concerning Subaru’s participation in 2018 when material terms had not been
2 negotiated and, in fact, Alpha radically changed the price of sponsorship and other
3 material aspects of the 2018 series after soliciting Subaru’s interest. (See Compl.
4 ¶¶ 82-85.) Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation made “on information and belief” about
5 an unnamed “Co-conspirator Co.” (Compl. ¶ 47) is the precise type of allegation that
6 Rule 9(b) is designed to prohibit. The allegation is not “specific enough to give
7 defendants notice of the particular misconduct … so that they can defend against the
8 charge and not just deny that they have done nothing wrong.” Vess, 317 F.3d at
9 1006. Accordingly, Count III of the Complaint must be dismissed.
10 4. Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim for Tortious Interference.
11 The elements of a claim for intentional interference with contractual
12 relations are (1) a valid contract between plaintiff and a third party; (2) defendant’s
13 knowledge of this contract; (3) defendant’s intentional acts designed to induce a
14 breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or disruption
15 of the contractual relationship; and (5) resulting damage. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v.
16 Bear Stearns & Co., 50 Cal. 3d 1118, 1126 (1990).
17 Here, Plaintiff does not allege the existence of a contract with Volkswagen.
18 Instead, Plaintiff alleges that “Volkswagen Group of America raced through the team
19 Volkswagen Andretti Rallycross during the 2017 series as well as in years past”
20 and that “upon information and belief . . . Volkswagen Group of America intended
21 to continue to participate in the 2018 series and had made binding commitments to
22 [Plaintiff] to do so.” (Compl. ¶¶ 30, 95.) Plaintiff’s failure to plead an actual
23 contract with Volkswagen is fatal to its claim: “A plaintiff who hales a defendant
24 into court for interfering with a contract ought to know -- and plead -- the contract it
25 lost by the defendant’s actionable interference.” Snyder Insurance Servs., Inc. v.
26 Sohn, No. 16-cv-2535, at *7 (D. Kan. July 3, 2017); see also Yucesoy v. Uber Techs.,
27 Inc., 109 F. Supp. 3d 1259, 1265 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (dismissing tortious interference
28 claim where existence of express contract not alleged). Plaintiff faces the same
20
SUBARU’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO:
(i) TRANSFER OR DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE; (ii) DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7 Filed 04/06/18 Page 28 of 29 Page ID #:59
1 obstacle here as it does not, because it cannot, plead the specific material terms that
2 were reached with Volkswagen, because no agreement was in fact ever reached
3 with Volkswagen, which expressed its rejection of Plaintiff's price increase and
4 withdrawal from the 2018 series before Subaru. (See Weir Decl. ¶ 17.) Subaru
5 obviously had no knowledge of a non-existent contract, but such knowledge is also
6 a material element of a tortious interference claim.
7 Nor does the Complaint plead any facts suggesting how Subaru “successfully
8 and intentionally induced Volkswagen Group of America to abandon the 2018 …
9 GRC series.” (Compl. ¶ 64.) Rule 8 demands “more than an unadorned, the-
10 defendant-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Plaintiff’s “naked
11 assertion[s]” of harm “devoid of ‘further factual enhancement’” are insufficient to
12 state a tortious interference claim. Id. (alteration in original) (citing Twombly,
13 550 U.S. at 557).
14 IV. CONCLUSION
15 For the foregoing reasons, Subaru respectfully requests that the Court dismiss
16 this case for improper venue or, in the alternative, transfer venue to the United
17 States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Alternatively, Subaru
18 respectfully requests this Court to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule
19 of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
20
21 DATED: April 6, 2018 Peter L. Haviland
Scott S. Humphreys
22 BALLARD SPAHR LLP
23
/s/ Scott S. Humphreys
24 Scott S. Humphreys
25 Attorneys for Defendant
26 SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC.
27
28
21
SUBARU’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO:
(i) TRANSFER OR DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE; (ii) DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7 Filed 04/06/18 Page 29 of 29 Page ID #:60
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I certify that on this 6th day of April 2018, I filed a true and correct copy of
3 the foregoing SUBARU’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO (i)
4 TRANSFER OR DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE; (ii) DISMISS FOR
5 FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
6 AUTHORITIES; AND DECLARATION OF ROBERT WEIR AND EXHIBITS
7 IN SUPPORT THEREOF electronically through the Court’s CM/ECF system,
8 which will send notice of the electronic filing to Plaintiff Alpha GRP. Inc. d/b/a
9 Red Bull Rallycross via its counsel of record:
10
EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP
11
Michael J. Avenatti
12 Ahmed Ibrahim
520 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1400
13
Newport Beach, CA 92660
14 mavenatti@eaganavenatti.com
aibrahim@eaganavenatti.com
15
16 Counsel for Plaintiff ALPHA GRP, INC.,
d/b/a RED BULL GLOBAL RALLYCROSS
17
18
19 /s/ Scott S. Humphreys
Scott S. Humphreys
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
SUBARU’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO:
(i) TRANSFER OR DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE; (ii) DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7-1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:61
1 Exhibit C. That proposal revealed, for the first time, Alpha’s intention to increase
2 the total fees for the 2018 GRC series to $ , which included a change to
3 the fee structure that made previously optional fees mandatory. In 2017, the total
4 fees for the GRC series were roughly $ which included a mandatory
5 $ certificate of compliance fee and an optional $ sponsorship fee.
6 In 2018, Alpha proposed to increase the sponsorship fee from $ to roughly
7 $ and to make that sponsorship fee mandatory. I did not accept or endorse
8 that proposal on behalf of Subaru then or at any other time. I simply replied to that
9 e-mail on October 23, 2017, stating: “Thanks for sending the respective proposals
10 for 2018/2019, we’ll review internally and come back with our thoughts/questions.”
11 A true and correct copy of that e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
12 12. On or about November 16, 2017, Mr. Dyne called me at my Subaru
13 office in Cherry Hill, New Jersey to inquire about the proposed 2018 agreement.
14 During that call, I expressed my concerns about the number of cars to be fielded by
15 manufacturers and the sharp increase in the proposed sponsorship fee. Mr. Dyne
16 acknowledged these concerns and we agreed to revisit the subject after the
17 Thanksgiving holiday.
18 13. On December 5, 2017, I received an e-mail from Greg Lucia, the
19 Director of Experiential Marketing at Volkswagen of America, Inc.
20 (“Volkswagen”), which is headquartered in Virginia. Mr. Lucia stated that the
21 increased fees for the 2018 GRC series “is a concern for us and not something we
22 can agree to at this point” and that “[t]here are significant concerns on our end as to
23 the stability of GRC for 2018, and I expressed those concerns to Colin [Dyne].”
24 Alicia Jones, the National Advertising Manager for American Honda Motor
25 Company, Inc. (“Honda”), responded to that e-mail, stating: “[W]e echo your
26 significant concerns. I have given upon on getting any real data from Colin/GRC.
27 Sends up big red flags that it isn’t readily provided.” A true and correct copy of
28 that e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
DMWEST #17606039 v1
DECLARATION OF ROBERT WEIR IN SUPPORT OF SUBARU’S MOTION TO TRANSFER
OR DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7-1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:65
1 renew its manufacturer’s agreement with GRC or enter a team in the 2018 series.
2 Following this announcement, Mr. McHale informed Alpha’s representatives and
3 the other attendees that Subaru could not commit to the series at that time.
4 18. On January 22, 2018, Colby Rodriguez and Colin Dyne at Alpha
5 sent me an e-mail attaching a “Follow Up” proposal to the January 16, 2018
6 meeting in Detroit. A true and correct copy of that e-mail and proposal is attached
7 hereto as Exhibit G. In the proposal, Alpha stated that it “understands the concern
8 for the significant increase in the proposed” fees for the 2018 series and offered to
9 reduce the total fees to $ “by removing certain contents of the agreement,
10 while also devaluing the overall inventory to make the investment similar to 2017.”
11 (Exh. G, at p. 2.) However, Alpha stated that “[t]his reduction comes with the
12 understanding that the overall package will increase starting in 2019.”
13 (Id.) Alpha also recognized that the “shocking news of Honda stepping back from
14 the series last year made things challenging for the key teams/sponsors/drivers”
15 and outlined a new car count for 2018 which stated that Subaru would have the
16 “option” to run “2-3 cars” and listed several other teams that would participate in
17 2018 to reach the “minimum of 10 supercars competing at every event.”
18 (Id. at p. 3.) After receiving this proposal, Subaru reached out to these identified
19 Supercar team stakeholders to confirm whether they would in fact be participating
20 in the 2018 GRC series. However, Subaru was informed that, like Honda and
21 Volkswagen, all but two of the other Supercar team stakeholders would not be
22 participating in the 2018 GRC series.
23 19. I had also received several reports that drivers and vendors associated
24 with Alpha's GRC racing events had not been paid or paid timely. In December
25 2017 and/or January 2018, Greg Lucia from Volkswagen reported that Colin Dyne
26 had not paid Volkswagen driver Scott Speed the money he was owed, and private
27 driver Steve Arpin separately reported that Colin Dyne had not paid him the money
28 he was owed. Subaru's rallycross partner, Vermont SportsCar, forwarded me
DMWEST #17606039 v1
DECLARATION OF ROBERT WEIR IN SUPPORT OF SUBARU’S MOTION TO TRANSFER
OR DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7-1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:67
1 reports published in Canadian media outlets that approximately six months had
2 passed before Rockcliffe Flying Club in Ottowa was paid for its July 2017 event.
3 20. On or about January 26, 2018, based primarily on the fact that Honda,
4 Volkswagen and the majority of other Supercar team stakeholders had confirmed
5 that they would not be participating in the 2018 GRC series, I sent an e-mail on
6 behalf of Subaru to Colin Dyne at Alpha, which informed Alpha that Subaru had
7 decided not to accept Alpha’s offer to participate in the 2018 GRC series. A true
8 and correct copy of that e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit H.
9 21. I reside in Wallingford, Pennsylvania, approximately 25 miles from
10 Subaru’s corporate headquarters in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. I, along with other
11 Subaru personnel involved in the decision to not accept Alpha’s proposed offer
12 for the 2018 GRC series, all work at Subaru’s headquarters in Cherry Hill,
13 New Jersey. All of those Subaru personnel reside in New Jersey or in the nearby
14 Philadelphia metro area.
15 22. At no point did I travel to California for the purpose of negotiating a
16 2018 Corporate Sponsorship Agreement with Alpha.
17 23. It would be much more convenient for me and all other Subaru
18 employees with knowledge relevant to the matters set forth herein to attend or
19 testify at depositions or a trial held in New Jersey, instead of California.
20 24. On or about March 14, 2018, I received a text message from Alpha’s
21 Chief Executive Officer, Colin Dyne. A true and correct copy of that text message
22 is attached hereto as Exhibit I.
23 25. On March 22, 2018, counsel for Subaru sent a cease and desist letter
24 to counsel for Alpha and Colin Dyne, a true and correct copy of which is
25 attached hereto as Exhibit J. As of the date of this declaration no response has
26 been received.
27 ////
28 ////
DMWEST #17606039 v1
DECLARATION OF ROBERT WEIR IN SUPPORT OF SUBARU’S MOTION TO TRANSFER
OR DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7-1 Filed 04/06/18 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #:68
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7-2 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:69
EXHIBIT A
[PROPOSED SEALED DOCUMENT
LODGED WITH THE COURT]
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7-3 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:70
EXHIBIT B
[PROPOSED SEALED DOCUMENT
LODGED WITH THE COURT]
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7-4 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:71
EXHIBIT C
[PROPOSED SEALED DOCUMENT
LODGED WITH THE COURT]
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7-5 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:72
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7-5 Filed 04/06/18 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:73
Hey Guys,
Nice job with LA. We would love to see that level of presentation and turnout at every round
next year.
Thanks for sending the respective proposals for 2018/2019, we’ll review internally and come
back with our thoughts/questions.
Any further information you can share on the following would help me during our review:
-2018 locations
-Expected/confirmed MFG’s for 2018
-List of Supercar competitors for 2018
-When you expect to share the news on your digital partner
Regards,
Rob
Rob Weir | Motorsports Manager | Subaru of America, Inc. | o. 856.488.3453 |
rweir@subaru.com
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7-6 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:74
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7-6 Filed 04/06/18 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:75
Weir, Robert
We echo your significant concerns. I have given up on getting any real data from Colin/GRC. Sends up big red flags that it
isn’t readily provided.
Alicia Jones
National Advertising Manager
310-783-3239 office
310463-3597 mobile
American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
1919 Torrance Blvd., M/S 100-3E-1G, Torrance, CA 90501
alicia_jones@ahm.honda.com
Rob / Alicia –
Sorry, just an update on our end: I met with Colin while in LA for Auto Show. While he was positive about GRC and the
addition of new sponsors (Total, a tire manufacture and Polaris), the increased Media fee is a concern for us and not
something we can agree to at this point. We are going thru a formal evaluation process with our agencies, but without
the details or even confirmation of the Turner digital platform, we are waiting on GRC to provide real details on the
deliverables for 2018. There are significant concerns on our end as to the stability of GRC for 2018 and I expressed those
concerns to Colin. We want a healthy, competitive field on the track in 2018, and without that this series offers very
little appeal to fans, OEM’s, broadcast platforms or anyone else - at any cost.
Greg Lucia
Director, Experiential Marketing
1
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7-7 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:76
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7-7 Filed 04/06/18 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:77
Hi Colby,
Thanks for checking in. I should be able to circle back with you towards the end of the month on these
topics.
In the meantime, we have concern about car count for next year. I have spoken directly to VW and
Honda, so we know their current status for 2018. Who else can you confirm for next year? I assume
Austin Dyne as well. We’ll field two cars next year. We don’t intend at this time to support additional
entries with VSC or a third party in 2018. I appreciate any insight you can provide on this.
Also, knowing the venues for next year would be helpful in our review process.
Thank you,
Rob
EXHIBIT G
[PROPOSED SEALED DOCUMENT
LODGED WITH THE COURT]
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7-9 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:79
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7-9 Filed 04/06/18 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:80
Weir, Robert
Dear All,
Regrettably, Subaru of America has decided to decline the GRC MFG offering for 2018. We appreciate GRC’s efforts to
make concessions, but following the recent exit of other MFG-supported programs from the series and the concern of
total supercar entries for 2018, we feel there’s too much instability to present our factory racing program for this
season.
We respect this is tough news, and we wish the series best of luck.
With Regards,
Rob
1
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7-10 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:81
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7-10 Filed 04/06/18 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:82
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7-11 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:83
Case 2:18-cv-02133-MWF-MRW Document 7-11 Filed 04/06/18 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:84
Peter L. Haviland
Tel: 424.204.4321
Fax: 424.204.4350
havilandp@ballardspahr.com
This firm is litigation counsel for Defendant Subaru of America, Inc. (“Subaru”) and its officers and
employees in connection with the above-referenced lawsuit.
We understand that Colin Dyne, the Chief Executive Officer of ALPHA GRP, Inc., has sent
threatening, harassing and defamatory messages to Subaru personnel, including Mr. Robert Weir.
These messages suggest that Mr. Dyne has become dangerously angry and irrational.
Even your own people hate You ask Lance what he thinks of u !
Scum I’ll see u on the other side … I have been in contact with
Japan and I am sure u will hear from THEM"
On March 16, 2018, Mr. Dyne sent another message to Mr. Weir, attaching a press release
concerning an unrelated lawsuit which resulted in an award of several hundred million dollars to one
of the parties. Mr. Dyne wrote to Mr. Weir:
These messages followed a January 1, 2018 letter from Mr. Dyne to Subaru executives accusing Mr.
Weir, as well as Michael McHale, of being "rogue managers" who through their "incompetence" had
"brought shame" to Subaru. The defamations in the letter referenced invented, unsupportable "facts."
We also understand that Mr. Dyne has physically assaulted Mr. Weir, by poking a finger in Weir’s
chest while yelling at him, on at least one prior occasion at a public racing event.
We are certain that you are aware of the liabilities associated with Mr. Dyne’s threatening and
defamatory behavior.
Demand is made that Mr. Dyne immediately cease all individual contact, whether by e-mail, text,
phone, social media, or other means with Subaru personnel, and physically stay away from Mr. Weir
and any other Subaru personnel, whether at Subaru’s offices or at public events. Please confirm
your agreement to comply with this demand not later than Monday, March 26, 2018, by 12:00 noon
Pacific Time.
Sincerely,
PLH
DMEAST #33934964 v1