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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?