Lewis v. Pfizer Inc et al

Filing 22

ORDER granting 13 Motion to Transfer/Change Venue; denying as moot 16 Motion to Expedite (Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 6/26/2012. (PJM) [Transferred from mnd on 6/26/2012.]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 09-1082(DSD/FLN)
Barbara Lewis,
Plaintiff,
v.
Pfizer, Inc., Pharmacia &
Upjohn Company, LLC, Pharmacia
Corporation, Pharmacia &
Upjohn, LLC., Greenstone Ltd.,
and ESI Lederle, Inc.,
Defendants.

This matter is before the court upon the motion by plaintiff
Barbara A. Lewis to transfer this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a).

Based on a review of the file, record and proceedings

herein, and for the following reasons, the court transfers this
action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Arkansas.
In response to plaintiff’s motion, defendants filed a onesentence objection to transfer, relying on “the reasons given
before.”
objections

ECF No. 20.
to

transfer.

The defendants, however, filed no prior
Moreover,

the

court finds

that the

convenience of the parties, the convenience of the witnesses and
the interest of justice all weigh in favor of transfer.

See Terra

Int’l, Inc. v. Miss. Chem. Corp., 119 F.3d 688, 691 (8th Cir. 1997)

(discussing three-prong transfer inquiry).

Therefore, transfer to

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas is proper.1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

The motion to transfer [ECF No. 13] is granted;

2.

The motion to expedite [ECF No. 16] is denied as moot;

3.

This action is transferred to the United States District

and

Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Dated:

June 26, 2012
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

1

If plaintiff had not requested transfer pursuant to
§ 1404(a), the court would have ordered transfer sua sponte. Cent.
Reg’l Emps. Benefit Fund v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., No. 09-2125,
2010 WL 3515693, at *3 (D. Minn. Aug. 31, 2010) (citations omitted)
(“[T]he case law in this circuit supports a district court’s
ability to transfer sua sponte.”).
2