govinfo:USCOURTS-akd-3_25-cv-00258-0

WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
COLE HARKOVITCH, ) 
) 
Plaintiff, ) 
vs. ) 
) 
EQUIPMENT LEASING GROUP OF ) 
AMERICA, LLC, and BRIAN TREBELS, ) 
)                                  No. 3:25-cv-0258-HRH
        Defendants. )  
_______________________________________)                                     
ORDER
Motion to Change Venue1
Defendant Equipment Leasing Group of America, LLC (herein “ELGA”), moves
to change venue.2  The motion is opposed by Plaintiff Cole Harkovitch.3  Defendants have
not filed a reply.  Oral argument has not been requested and is not deemed necessary. 
In the motion to change venue, ELGA maintains that the forum-selection clause
within a contract between the parties should be enforced and this case should be
transferred to federal court in Illinois.4  Plaintiff disagrees, contending that the forum-
selection clause is inapplicable to this lawsuit because it only covers disputes relating to
1Docket No. 9.  
2Defendant Brian Trebels was joined to this action pursuant to an amended
complaint filed by Plaintiff on February 12, 2026, after ELGA moved to change venue. 
Docket No. 19.  
3Docket No. 12.
4Docket No. 9 at 5.
ORDER – Motion to Change Venue     - 1 -
Case 3:25-cv-00258-HRH     Document 22     Filed 03/12/26     Page 1 of 7
the interpretation of the contract and Plaintiff’s tort claims “deal solely with ELGA’s
misconduct involving its debt collection activities.”5  Plaintiff contends that the forum-
selection clause “does not waive [his] protection under the Alaska Unfair Trade Practice
and Consumer Protection Act.”6  
Facts
This case arises out of ELGA’s debt collection efforts against Plaintiff.7  Plaintiff
filed suit in Alaska state court asserting claims for breach of contract, fraud, and
violations of the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, Alaska
Statute § 45.50.471.8  Plaintiff’s contract and fraud claims are based on the same facts as
Plaintiff’s Unfair Trade Practices claim.  
As alleged in the Complaint, Alaska Motor Home, Inc. was incorporated in 2016
by Plaintiff’s father, Peter Harkovitch.9  Peter Harkovitch, on behalf of Alaska Motor
Home, Inc., entered into three equipment financing agreements.  Specifically, on
March 15, 2023, Peter Harkovitch executed an equipment financing agreement with
Defendant ELGA for the purchase of two 2024 Sunseeker motorhomes.10  The equipment
financing agreement contained a personal guaranty by Plaintiff Cole Harkovitch.  Plaintiff
5Docket No. 12 at 14-15.  
6Docket No. 12 at 19.
7See generally Complaint, Docket No. 1-1 at 2-12.  Plaintiff’s amended complaint
contains additional factual allegations regarding ELGA’s conduct while attempting to
collect on its debt.  See Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 26-57, Docket No. 19 at 5-13.  The
amended complaint did not alter the allegations as described herein.  
8Complaint, ¶¶ 35-57, Docket No. 1-1 at 8-12.  
9Complaint, ¶ 6, Docket No. 1-1 at 3.
10Complaint, ¶ 14, Docket No. 1-1 at 4; Ex. 1, Docket No. 1-1 at 13-14.  
ORDER – Motion to Change Venue     - 2 -
Case 3:25-cv-00258-HRH     Document 22     Filed 03/12/26     Page 2 of 7
contends that his signature on the personal guaranty agreement was forged.  On April 28,
2023, Peter Harkovitch executed a second financing agreement with Defendant to
purchase eight 2024 Sunseeker motorhomes.11  Plaintiff signed the agreement, providing
a personal guaranty for the loan at the request of his father.12  The personal guaranty
provides in part that:  
THIS PERSONAL GUARANTY IS GOVERNED BY THE
LAWS OF ILLINOIS.  YOU CONSENT TO THE EXCLUS-
IVE JURISDICTION OF ANY STATE OR PRETRIAL
COURT LOCATED IN ILLINOIS OR ANY STATE OR
FEDERAL COURT OF OUR ASSIGNEE.  YOU EXPRESS-
LY WAIVE ANY RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY.[13]   
Finally, on May 12, 2023, Peter Harkovitch entered into a third financing agreement with
Defendant to purchase two 2024 Sunseeker motorhomes.14  This third agreement also
contains a personal guaranty by Plaintiff.  However, Plaintiff alleges that his signature on
this third personal guaranty agreement was forged.15  
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was informed that the first and third guaranty
agreements contained Plaintiff’s forged signature, but Plaintiff alleges that Defendant 
“continues to try and enforce” the agreements in violation of the Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Act.16  Because all three personal guaranty agreements are
identical, the court’s decision as to the validity of the second personal agreement will, if
11Complaint, ¶ 18, Docket No. 1-1 at 5; Ex. 2, Docket No. 1-1 at 23-24.  
12Complaint, ¶¶ 19-20, Docket No. 1-1 at 5; Ex. 2, Docket No. 1-1 at 27.  
13Ex. 2, Docket No. 1-1 at 27.  
14Complaint, ¶ 21, Docket No. 1-1 at 5, 6; Ex. 3, Docket No. 1-1 at 45, 46.  
15Complaint, ¶ 22, Docket No. 1-1 at 6; Ex. 3, Docket 1-1 at 49.  
16Complaint, ¶¶ 17, 24, Docket No. 1-1 at 5, 6.  
ORDER – Motion to Change Venue     - 3 -
Case 3:25-cv-00258-HRH     Document 22     Filed 03/12/26     Page 3 of 7
necessary, be dispositive of the validity of the personal guaranty agreement in the first
and third personal guaranty agreements.  
After Defendant ELGA commenced collection efforts, Plaintiff requested an
“accounting and breakdown of your liquidation or the collateral referenced in [the three
financing agreements]” and “a complete copy of each of the sales transaction documents,
advertisements, listings, etc., for each of the motorhomes.”17  Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant only provided part of the information that he requested, and has otherwise
“failed to provide ... any information that would demonstrate that the Defendant sold or
liquidated [its] collateral in a commercial reasonable manner.”18  
Plaintiff commenced this lawsuit on August 28, 2025.  On October 7, 2025,
Defendant removed the case to this court.19  On December 1, 2025, Defendant filed the
instant motion to change venue.20  
Applicable Law
A.  Venue  
Venue is proper:   (1) in the district where any defendant resides, if all defendants
reside in the same state; (2) in the district where “a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the
subject of the action is situated;” or (3) if there is no district in which the claim can
otherwise be brought, in the district in which any defendant is subject to personal
jurisdiction.  28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).  Here, the forum-selection agreement contained in
17Complaint, ¶ 25, Docket No. 1-1 at 6; Ex. 4, Docket No. 1-1 at 57-58.  
18Complaint, ¶¶ 26, 34, Docket No. 1-1 at 7, 8.  
19Docket No. 1.  
20Docket No. 9.  
ORDER – Motion to Change Venue     - 4 -
Case 3:25-cv-00258-HRH     Document 22     Filed 03/12/26     Page 4 of 7
Plaintiff’s personal guaranty agreements potentially provide a fourth vehicle for venue in
Illinois rather than Alaska.  
B.  Motion to Transfer  
Courts “apply federal contract law to interpret the scope of a forum-selection
clause even in diversity actions.”  Sun v. Advanced China Healthcare, Inc., 901 F.3d
1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2018) (citations omitted).  A forum-selection clause that “point[s] to
a particular federal district” is enforceable “through a motion to transfer under
[28 U.S.C.] § 1404(a).”  Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Tex.,
571 U.S. 49, 59 (2013).  Generally, when the parties are bound by a valid forum-selection
clause, a district court should enforce the clause through transfer pursuant to § 1404(a). 
Sun, 901 F.3d at 1087, 1093 (affirming dismissal of complaint pursuant to forum-
selection clause under doctrine of forum non conveniens).  “[A] forum-selection clause
‘should control except in unusual cases’” and “‘[o]nly under extraordinary circumstances
unrelated to the convenience of the parties’ should a motion to enforce a forum-selection
clause be denied.”  Id. at 1088 (alteration in original) (quoting Atl. Marine Constr. Co.,
571 U.S. at 66, 64).  The Plaintiff carries the burden of showing why a court should not
enforce the forum-selection clause.  Id. at 1087. 
C.  Validity of Forum-Selection Clause
A forum-selection clause is prima facie valid unless the party challenging the
provision can show it is unreasonable under the circumstances. M/S Bremen v. Zapata
Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10 (1972).  A forum-selection clause may be deemed
unreasonable under the following circumstances: “(1) if the inclusion of the clause in the
agreement was the product of fraud or overreaching; (2) if the party wishing to repudiate
the clause would effectively be deprived of his day in court were the clause enforced; and
ORDER – Motion to Change Venue     - 5 -
Case 3:25-cv-00258-HRH     Document 22     Filed 03/12/26     Page 5 of 7
(3) if enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which suit is
brought.”  Holland Am. Line Inc. v. Wartsila N. Am., Inc., 485 F.3d 450, 457 (9th Cir.
2007) (quoting Murphy v. Schneider Nat'l, Inc., 362 F.3d 1133, 1140 (9th Cir. 2004)).  
Discussion
ELGA maintains that the forum-selection clause within the Personal Guaranty
agreements should be enforced and this case should be transferred to federal court in
Illinois.21  Plaintiff contends that the forum-selection clause in the personal guaranty
agreements “does not waive [his] protection under the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Act.”22  The court construes the foregoing as an argument that the
forum-selection clause in the personal guaranty agreements is unenforceable.  
Alaska Statute § 45.50.542 provides that: “[a] waiver by a consumer of the
provisions of AS 45.50.471 – 45.50.561 is contrary to public policy and is unenforceable
and void.”  
Transferring this case to an Illinois court, which would apply Illinois state law in
assessing Plaintiff’s claims, would violate Alaska’s public policy to protect consumers
from unfair trade practices.  The court concludes that the forum-selection provision in the
personal guaranty agreements now before the court are void and therefore
unenforceable.23  Scott v. Airstream, Inc., 715 F.Supp.3d 1295 (S.D. Cal. 2024), which
21Docket No. 9 at 5.  
22Docket No. 12 at 19.  
23The Alaska Supreme Court has not ruled on the question of whether Alaska
public policy would preclude enforcement of a forum-selection clause based on the
waiver provision in Alaska Statute § 45.50.542.  See Resqsoft, Inc. v. Protech Sols, Inc., 
488 P.3d 979, 983, 986 (Alaska 2021) (Court had no occasion to address whether Alaska
public policy pursuant to the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act
precluded enforcement of a forum-selection clause as the Plaintiff  “[did] not expressly
(continued...)
ORDER – Motion to Change Venue     - 6 -
Case 3:25-cv-00258-HRH     Document 22     Filed 03/12/26     Page 6 of 7
Defendant relies upon, in fact support Plaintiff’s contention that consumer protection law
and public policy can negate forum-selection clauses which might otherwise be
enforceable.24  
Defendant’s choice of law clause would require the application of Illinois law,
effectively denying Plaintiff an opportunity to bring an Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Act claim.  
Conclusion
Alaska’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and in particular
§ 45.50.542, renders the forum-selection clause in ELGA’s personal guaranty agreements
unenforceable as a matter of public policy.  Defendant ELGA’s motion for change of
venue is denied.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this  12th  day of March, 2026.   
/s/   H. Russel Holland                     
United States District Judge 
23(...continued)
make that public policy argument on appeal.”).  
24In Scott v. Airstream, Inc., the court rejected a claim of fraud or overreaching
with respect to a California case similar to this case and concluded that a California con-
sumer protection law (similar to that enacted by Alaska) precluded enforcement of
Airstream’s forum-selection clause.  
ORDER – Motion to Change Venue     - 7 -
Case 3:25-cv-00258-HRH     Document 22     Filed 03/12/26     Page 7 of 7

Passage view · GavelSight