A man recently filed a suit claiming he received a defective recreational vehicle (RV) unit. The unit was sent to Indiana in line with a mandatory forum-selection clause. However, the man argued that the case should be delayed or stayed because he was rendering active duty service. Unfortunately, the man failed to present documents detailing his service duration or any supporting document from his commanding officer.
Edgar Carrelo filed a lawsuit against Keystone RV Company, the RV’s manufacturer, highlighting multiple claims under federal and Virginia law. Keystone insisted that the case be transferred to Indiana in line with its mandatory forum-selection clause. Meanwhile, Carrelo cited that the court should delay the proceedings with respect to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). This is while Carrelo remains deployed with the Coast Guard.
The SCRA stipulates that a service member on active duty is permitted to stay in civil proceedings should their military service materially affect their ability to comply with the court’s mandates. This provision doesn’t apply to Carrelo because he’s not subject to any order or judgment.
The SCRA also mandates that civil proceeding delays are allowed if the member is rendering military service and has deployment orders. However, the request doesn’t indicate the date Carrelo is available to resume the case. Carrelo’s commanding officer has also failed to supply a letter or any form of communication requesting to stay in court proceedings.
The forum selection is said to be valid. To counter this, Carrelo maintained that he didn’t consent to the clause because no one had presented it to him, and there was no mutual understanding of the ‘state of manufacture’ provision.
However, Carrelo signed a contract giving his consent to a possible transfer, and the contract didn’t contain ambiguous language that could have been misinterpreted. Hence, the court approved transferring the Northern District of Indiana case.
In May 2024, the court requested Carrelo’s side to explain why the motion to transfer shouldn’t be granted, arguing that three other cases pushed through with similar circumstances. Unfortunately, the defendant’s request to transfer the venue was granted despite the counsel’s attempts to delay the proceeding.
The case didn’t end up favoring the service member primarily because they failed to secure proof they were rendering active duty service. The SCRA stipulates that military personnel should present evidence of their military service for the SCRA right-to-stay proceedings to be respected. Carrelo’s commanding officer also didn’t give him the documents he needed.
Cases like this can be avoided if the service member secured proof of military service sooner. Unfortunately, it may take time for military personnel to obtain the documents they need from their military base or installation.
SCRACVS can help service members avoid getting into this situation by providing their military status as quickly as 24 hours. Companies dealing with military personnel can likewise avoid possible SCRA penalties by verifying their military status as part of due diligence. Click here to sign up at SCRAVS and verify the active duty status.