B & R Supermarket, Inc., et al v. Visa, Inc. et al

Filing 518

ORDER GRANTING 437 MOTION TO TRANSFER by Hon. William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2017)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
B & R SUPERMARKET, INC., et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

12
13
14
15

No. C 16-01150 WHA

v.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO TRANSFER

VISA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
/

On March 20, defendants Mastercard and Visa moved to transfer this antitrust action to

16

the Eastern District of New York, citing “overlapping issues” with a multidistrict litigation

17

pending there (Dkt. No. 437). Plaintiffs alone vigorously opposed the motion (Dkt. No. 446).

18

The motion was fully briefed by April 10 and scheduled for hearing on April 27. On April 24,

19

however, plaintiffs changed their position and filed a statement of non-opposition consenting to

20

“transfer and coordination with the litigation in New York, so that all parties may benefit from

21

certain efficiencies, as discovery overlaps have escalated” (Dkt. No. 492).

22

The Court also independently considered the private and public interest factors at stake,

23

including plaintiffs’ concerns about the burdens of duplicative discovery should this action

24

remain in our district (e.g., Dkt. No. 509 at 6:6–6:16). This order concludes that, for the

25

convenience of the parties and in the interest of justice, this action should be transferred —

26

despite the large investment of time by this district judge in the case. See 28 U.S.C. 1404(a);

27

Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986).

28

1

One particular consideration merits brief mention. In connection with the motion to

2

transfer, defendant Discover Financial Services submitted a statement of non-opposition and

3

voiced its concern that plaintiffs here appear to have relied on arguments and allegations

4

inconsistent with those asserted by the same counsel for plaintiffs in the New York MDL (Dkt.

5

No. 450). Having reviewed both Discover’s statement and plaintiffs’ response thereto (Dkt. No.

6

487), the Court is troubled by the possibility of inconsistent litigation positions between this

7

action and the New York MDL and recognizes that such potential abuses would be easier to

8

police in the Eastern District of New York.

9

TRANSFERRED

to the Eastern District of New York for all purposes.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to transfer is GRANTED. This action is hereby

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: May 4, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2