Walls et al v. Gynecare, Inc. et al

Filing 16

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 12 Motion to Transfer Case (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DONNA K. WALLS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GYNECARE, INC., et al., Defendants. _______________________________/ Before the court is defendants' motion to transfer the above-entitled action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Plaintiffs filed no opposition to the motion within the time required under Civil Local Rule 7-3. Having read defendants' papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS the motion. The court finds that defendants have established that transfer is appropriate because discovery and trial of this case in Georgia will be more convenient for the parties and witnesses, and because transfer is in the interest of justice, given the location of all the evidence in Georgia. This is a product liability case, in which plaintiffs ­ citizens of Georgia ­ allege injuries suffered as a result of surgery performed in Georgia in May 2005. Named as defendants are Gynecare, Inc.; Ethicon, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; and American Medical Systems, Inc. Plaintiffs allege that Gynecare, Inc. is a California corporation, but defendants have established that Gynecare, Inc. was acquired by defendant Johnson & Johnson (a new Jersey corporation) in November 1997, and then merged out of existence and into No. C 09-4067 PJH ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

defendant Ethicon, Inc. (also a New Jersey corporation, and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), in January 2000. American Medical Systems, Inc. is a Delaware corporation. Because the events alleged in the complaint occurred in Georgia, because the parties are not located in this judicial district, and because plaintiffs have made no showing that any witnesses or evidence exists here, the court finds that the action must be transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), Accordingly, defendants' motion is GRANTED. The date for the hearing on the motion, previously noticed for December 23, 2009, is VACATED.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 11, 2009 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge

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

2