Woodruff et al v. Eli Lilly and Company

Filing 27

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 04/09/15 DENYING 19 Motion to Change Venue. (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DEANNA CHESHIER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

18

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, an
Indiana Corporation,

ORDER DENYING EACH PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Defendant.
CARL WOODRUFF and PENNY
WOODRUFF,
Plaintiffs,

19
v.

20
21

No. 2:14-CV-01890-GEB-SKO

v.

16
17

No. 1:14-CV-01265-GEB-SKO

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, and
Indiana corporation,

22

Defendant.

23
Each Plaintiff moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for an

24
25
26
27
28

order transferring venue to the Southern District of Indiana,
where

Defendant

Eli

Lilly

and

Company

(“Defendant”)

is

headquartered. Section 1404(a) prescribes: “For the convenience
of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district
1

1

court may transfer any civil action to any other district or

2

division where it might have been brought . . . .”

3

11

A motion to transfer venue under section
1404(a) requires the court to weigh multiple
factors in its determination whether transfer
is appropriate in a particular case. For
example, the court may consider: (1) the
location
where
the
relevant
[events
occurred], (2) the state most familiar with
the governing law, (3) the plaintiff’s choice
of
forum,
(4)
the
respective
parties’
contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts
relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action
in the chosen forum, (6) the differences in
the cost of litigation in the two forums, (7)
the availability of compulsory process to
compel attendance of unwilling non-party
witnesses, and (8) the ease of access to
sources of proof.

12

Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-499 (9th Cir.

13

2000).

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

14

The essence of each Plaintiff’s argument is that the

15

motion should be granted because his or her case is among forty-

16

seven “Cymbalta actions” filed in twenty-nine district courts and

17

that venue transfer would prevent the “needlessly burdensome”

18

task of “individually litigating this volume of cases,” reduce

19

costs, and increase efficiency. (Cheshier Docket Reply 6:3-7, ECF

20

No. 26; Woodruff Docket Reply 6:3-7, ECF No. 23.). Plaintiffs

21

allege they suffered injury from discontinuing use of Cymbalta, a

22

drug manufactured and marketed by Defendant, and that this injury

23

was

24

potential effects of withdrawal from Cymbalta.

caused

by

Defendant’s

failure

to

adequately

warn

of

the

25

Defendant counters Plaintiffs have not sustained their

26

burden of showing that transferring venue is in the interests of

27

justice. Specifically, Defendant argues:

28

a predominance of factors militate in favor
2

1

5

of maintaining venue in the Eastern District
of California — including . . . access to and
convenience of key third-party witnesses and
potential ability to compel the presence of
these key witnesses at trial; and the
interest of the state of California in the
adjudication of disputes brought by its
citizens
by
experienced
California-based
jurists.

6

(Cheshier Docket Opp’n 10:24-11:1, ECF No. 25; Woodruff Docket

7

Opp’n 10:24-11:1, ECF No. 22.)

2
3
4

8

Each Plaintiff fails to show that the balance of the

9

transfer of venue factors favors granting his or her requested

10

transfer.

11

Dated:

Therefore, each motion is DENIED.

April 9, 2015

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3