Sandra Spivey et al v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

Filing 12

ORDER that this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.(Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 4/30/2014. (PJM) [Transferred from Minnesota on 5/1/2014.]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 08-730(DSD/JJG)
Sandra Spivey and
William Spivey,
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
Novartis Pharmaceuticals
Corporation,
Defendant.

This matter is before the court upon the responses of the
parties regarding possible transfer of 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
Central District of California.1

BACKGROUND
This is one of thousands of product-liability actions filed in
the District of Minnesota by plaintiffs who have no connection to
Minnesota against defendants who have no connection to Minnesota
regarding events that did not occur in Minnesota and that had no
impact within Minnesota.

The vast majority of these actions have

been filed in this district because, if they were filed by the

1

The parties agree that the court should transfer this action
to the Central District of California.

plaintiffs in their home states (or almost anywhere else), they
would be dismissed under the applicable statutes of limitations.
This case is typical.

Plaintiffs William Spivey and Sandra

Spivey are citizens of California.

Compl. ¶¶ 2-3.

Defendant

Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Corporation (Novartis) is incorporated in
Delaware and has a principal place of business in New Jersey.

Id.

¶ 4.
On March 17, 2008, plaintiffs filed suit, alleging that Sandra
Spivey developed osteonecrosis of her jaw bone as a result of using
Aredia, a drug manufactured by Novartis.

William Spivey also

alleged a claim for loss of consortium.

On April 28, 2008,

pursuant to

an

order

by

the

Judicial

Panel

on

Multidistrict

Litigation, the case was transferred to the Middle District of
Tennessee for pretrial proceedings.

See ECF No. 5.

The case was

remanded to the District of Minnesota on March 26, 2014.

On March

28, 2014, the court ordered the parties to submit briefs discussing
transfer of this action.

The parties timely responded, and the

court now considers transfer under § 1404(a).

DISCUSSION
Section

1404(a)

provides

that

“[f]or

the

convenience

of

parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court
may transfer any civil action to any other district or division
where it might have been brought.”

2

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

Deciding

whether to order a transfer under § 1404(a) “require[s] a case-bycase evaluation of the particular circumstances at hand and a
consideration of all relevant factors.” Terra Int’l, Inc. v. Miss.
Chem. Corp., 119 F.3d 688, 691 (8th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted).
The relevant factors generally fall into three categories: (1) the
convenience of the parties; (2) the convenience of the witnesses;
and (3) the interests of justice.

Id. (citation omitted).

There

is, however, “no exhaustive list of specific factors to consider.”
Id.
I.

Convenience of the Parties and Convenience of the Witnesses
In this action, no party is located in Minnesota, no relevant

event occurred in Minnesota, no alleged injury was suffered in
Minnesota and no evidence is present in Minnesota.

Minnesota does

not appear to be convenient for anyone — including plaintiffs, who
live in California.2

Moreover, Spivey’s prescribing and treating

physicians are presumably in California.

See LeMond Cycling, Inc.

v. Trek Bicycle Corp., No. 08-1010, 2008 WL 2247084, at *3 (D.

2

Of course, plaintiffs can choose to inconvenience themselves
and, if litigating in Minnesota were convenient for defendants and
third-party witnesses, the court would not transfer the case solely
to eliminate an inconvenience that plaintiffs want to bear. See
CBS Interactive Inc. v. Nat’l Football League Players Ass’n, Inc.,
259 F.R.D. 398, 409 (D. Minn. 2009) (“[Plaintiffs] chose to
litigate this action in Minnesota and it would be paradoxical for
that choice to be dislodged by any inconvenience it elected to bear
in litigating its action in this locale.” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
For the reasons described above,
however, litigating in Minnesota would not be convenient for
defendants or third-party witnesses.
3

Minn. May 29, 2008) (“More importantly ... the focus is on the
inconvenience caused to nonparty witnesses ....”).

As a result,

the first two factors favor transfer.
II.

Interests of Justice
The interests of justice typically involve considerations of

“(1) judicial economy, (2) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (3) the
comparative costs to the parties of litigating in each forum,
(4) each party’s ability to enforce a judgment, (5) obstacles to a
fair trial, (6) conflict of law[s] issues, and (7) the advantages
of having a local court determine questions of local law.”
Int’l, Inc., 119 F.3d at 696 (citation omitted).

Terra

Other than the

plaintiff’s choice of forum, all factors either support or are
neutral regarding transfer.

Therefore, the interests of justice

favor transferring this action.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
this action is transferred to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California.
Dated:

April 30, 2014
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

4