Papasan et al v. Dometic Corporation et al

Filing 126

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 83 MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/16/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CATHERINE PAPASAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
Re: Dkt. No. 83

10

DOMETIC CORPORATION,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-02117-HSG

12
Currently pending before the Court is Defendant Dometic Corporation’s motion to transfer

13
14

venue to the Southern District of Florida. Dkt. No. 83 (“Mot.”). Defendant filed the motion on

15

October 20, 2017. Id. On November 3, 2017, Plaintiffs Catherine Papasan, Nelson Goehle,

16

Andrew Young, Christopher Johnston, Jimmy Byers, and Richard and Leah Vollberg

17

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a response. Dkt. No. 86 (“Opp.”).1 Defendant replied on

18

November 13, 2017. Dkt. No. 91 (“Reply”).
On January 4, 2018, the parties argued the motion. Dkt. No. 106. At oral argument, the

19
20

parties addressed whether Defendant’s transfer motion could be mooted by Plaintiffs’ then-

21

pending request for centralization and transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See Dkt. No. 107 (“Hr’g

22

Transcript”) at 4:8-7:8. Plaintiffs brought that motion on October 30, 2017 before the United

23

States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “MDL Panel”). See Dkt. No. 1 (the “MDL

24

Brief”), IN RE: Dometic Gas Absorption Refrigerator Prod. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2811 (J.P.M.L.

25

Oct. 13, 2017) (the “MDL Action”). The question before the MDL Panel was whether this action

26

should be consolidated with two cases residing in the Southern District of Florida and one action

27
1

28

After Plaintiffs filed their opposition, Plaintiffs submitted a second amended complaint that
added named parties and allegations. See Dkt. No. 93 (“SAC”).

1

ongoing in the Central District of California. See Dkt. No. 109, Schedule A (listing the litigation

2

as consisting of Varner, et al. v. Dometic Corporation, C.A. No. 1:16-22482, Zucconi, et al. v.

3

Dometic Corporation, C.A. No. 1:17-23197, and Zimmer, et al. v. Dometic Corporation, C.A. No.

4

2:17-06913).2
On January 30, 2018, the MDL Panel issued an order denying Plaintiffs’ motion. Dkt. No.

5
6

109. Following the MDL Panel’s decision, the Court again heard argument on Defendant’s

7

motion. After carefully considering the parties’ arguments, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s

8

motion.

9
10

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

“For the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court

12

may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought . . .

13

.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The purpose of this statute is “to prevent the waste of time, energy and

14

money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and

15

expense.” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (internal quotation marks omitted).

16

The moving party bears the burden of showing that the transferee district is a “more appropriate

17

forum.” See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2000). The district

18

court has broad discretion in deciding whether or not to transfer. See Ventress v. Japan Airlines,

19

486 F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir. 2007).
The Court’s transfer inquiry proceeds in two steps. First, the Court determines “whether

20
21

the transferee district was one in which the action might have been brought by the plaintiff.”

22

Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343–44 (1960) (internal quotation marks omitted). If so, the

23

Court conducts “an individualized” case-specific analysis of convenience and fairness. Stewart

24

Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29, (1988) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this

25

district, courts typically consider the following factors: (1) plaintiffs’ choice of forum, (2)

26
27
28

2

As the MDL Panel noted, Varner and Zucconi were consolidated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 in
September 2017. See Dkt. No. 109 at 1 n.1. Varner was dismissed on July 27, 2017, and thus
only Zucconi remains pending on the consolidated docket. Id.
2

1

convenience of the parties, (3) convenience of the witnesses, (4) ease of access to the evidence, (5)

2

familiarity of each forum with the applicable law, (6) feasibility of consolidation with other

3

claims, (7) any local interest in the controversy, and (8) the relative court congestion and time to

4

trial in each forum. See, e.g., Ironworks Patents LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 17-cv-01958-

5

HSG, 2017 WL 3007066, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2017); Perez v. Performance Food Grp., Inc.,

6

No. 15-cv-02390-HSG, 2017 WL 66874, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2017); Brown v. Abercrombie &

7

Fitch Co., No. 4:13-cv-05205 YGR, 2014 WL 715082, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2014).3 “This list

8

is non-exclusive, and courts may consider other factors, or only those factors which are pertinent

9

to the case at hand.” Martin v. Glob. Tel*Link Corp., No. 15-cv-00449-YGR, 2015 WL 2124379,

10

at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2015).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

II.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs do not dispute that this action could have brought in the Southern District of

13
14

Florida. See Mot. at 15–17; Reply at 15 n.10. The Court therefore turns directly to the second

15

step of its transfer analysis. Plaintiffs assert that the majority of the factors above disfavor

16

transfer. Plaintiffs, for instance, argue that transfer is inconvenient because key witnesses and

17

counsel for the parties are not based in Florida. See Opp. at 12–14. In addition, Plaintiffs contend

18

that there is little benefit to litigating this action alongside Varner/Zucconi because those cases

19

involve different facts and evidence. See Opp. at 15. According to Plaintiffs, transfer would also

20

be prejudicial due to the relatively advanced state of this litigation.
The Court disagrees. To begin, Plaintiffs made numerous representations in their MDL

21
22

Brief that contradict these claims. Broadly, Plaintiffs asserted that: (1) the cases before the MDL

23

Panel (i.e., Varner/Zucconi, Zimmer, and this litigation) share a “common core of operative factual

24

allegations” that “predominate over individual questions of fact” specific to any one action; (2)

25

there were “efficiencies to be gained through coordinated discovery and motion practice” that

26
27
28

3

These factors are also “[c]onsistent” with Ninth Circuit precedent. See Wilson v. Walgreen Co.,
No. C-11-2930 EMC, 2011 WL 4345079, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2011); see also Jones, 211
F.3d at 498–99 (listing examples of factors that courts may consider).
3

1

would “minimize duplication of effort and burden on all parties”; and (3) centralization would

2

“minimize the risk of inconsistent rulings,” and accordingly, a propensity for “forum and judge

3

shopping.” MDL Brief at 2, 6–8, 11. Plaintiffs stated that, “[a]bsent transfer, the federal court

4

system will be forced to administer—and Defendant will be compelled to defend—these related

5

actions across multiple venues, all proceeding on potentially different pretrial schedules and

6

subject to different judicial decision-making and local procedural requirements.” Id. at 8–9.

7

Though Plaintiffs argued that there would be advantages to transferring the consolidated litigation

8

to this Court, Plaintiffs did so independently of setting forth centralization’s broad benefits. See

9

id. at 12–15.

10

In light of Plaintiffs’ statements, the balance of the transfer factors tips in Defendant’s

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

favor. With respect to Plaintiffs’ choice of forum, that selection is given less weight where, as

12

here, Plaintiffs seek to represent a class. Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987)

13

(“[W]hen an individual brings a derivative suit or represents a class, the named plaintiff's choice

14

of forum is given less weight.”). In addition, “where the plaintiff resides outside of the chosen

15

forum, his choice of forum is entitled to less weight.” Ambriz v. Matheson Tri-Gas, No. C 14-

16

1041 CW, 2014 WL 2753886, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2014). At the time that Defendant filed its

17

motion, six of the seven named Plaintiffs lived outside of California, and two named Plaintiffs

18

lived in Florida. See Mot. at 9. Of the sixteen Plaintiffs named in the second amended complaint,

19

thirteen reside outside of California. See SAC ¶¶ 17, 26, 37, 49, 56, 65, 76, 88, 99, 110, 121, 132.

20

Four of the named Plaintiffs now reside in Florida. See id. The substantial number of non-

21

resident named Plaintiffs cuts against Plaintiffs’ claim that it is more convenient for the parties to

22

litigate here.

23

With respect to expediency, Plaintiffs’ MDL Brief detailed the ways that centralization in

24

one district, with coordinated discovery, would “minimize duplication of effort and burden on all

25

parties.” MDL Brief at 8. At this stage, any inconvenience associated with Florida travel is

26

outweighed by transfer’s efficiency gains. Not only has Varner/Zucconi long-resided in the

27

Southern District of Florida, but now Zimmer will be litigated there as well. See Dkt. No. 121, Ex.

28
4

1

A.4 Considering that Defendant is named in all three cases, and that those cases share a common

2

factual core, there will almost certainly be overlapping witnesses. See MDL Brief at 7–8

3

(describing the shared factual inquiry as “whether Defendant designed, manufactured, marketed

4

and sold defective gas absorption refrigerators”); Mot. at 13. And even if one action presents

5

unique facts, Plaintiffs acknowledge that the cases’ commonalities predominate over their

6

differences. See MDL Brief at 2, 6–7. Given this overlap, it is feasible that this case will be

7

consolidated with Varner/Zucconi and Zimmer upon transfer. See Mot. at 11–12. Thus, this factor

8

too weighs in favor of transfer.
The Court cannot say based on the litigation’s stage that it has greater knowledge, as

9

compared to the Southern District of Florida, of the legal issues underlying these actions. This

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

case remains at the pleading stage, and the Court has ruled on one of two motions to dismiss. See

12

Mot. at 11. Plaintiffs do not dispute that Judge Scola in the Southern District of Florida has

13

rendered three substantive decisions in Varner/Zucconi—one on a motion to dismiss, another on a

14

motion for summary judgment, and the third on a motion for reconsideration. See id.; Opp. at 14–

15

16. As a result, both courts have become familiar with the disparate state doctrines governing

16

Plaintiffs’ claims. And again, Plaintiffs acknowledge that this action shares a common factual

17

core with Varner/Zucconi and Zimmer. In considering the relative degree of judicial congestion,

18

Plaintiffs admit that this district’s median time for civil cases is greater than that of the Southern

19

District of Florida. See Opp. at 16. Plaintiffs fail to cite any authority for their proposition that, in

20

evaluating this factor, the Court should assess the length of time that this particular case has been

21

pending.
As to the interests of justice, Plaintiffs argue that transfer to the Southern District of

22
23

Florida would create unfairness, disruption, and delay. See Opp. at 17–18. But Plaintiffs in their

24

MDL Brief acknowledge that “transfer to a single district court is appropriate for the just and

25

efficient resolution of these cases.” MDL Brief at 12. Defendant subsequently agreed. Mot. at

26
4

27
28

As in this case, Defendant brought a motion to transfer the Zimmer action from the Central
District of California to the Southern District of Florida. See Dkt. No. 121, Ex. A. The Court in
Zimmer granted that motion on February 22, 2018, approximately one month after the MDL
Panel’s decision denying section 1407 centralization. Id.
5

1

14. Even aside from expediency, Plaintiffs admit that transfer will reduce the risk of inconsistent

2

rulings. MDL Brief at 11. Judicial inconsistency, in turn, “encourages forum and judge shopping

3

(including, for example, manipulation of non-congruent discovery limits, approaches to

4

electronically stored information, and protective order issues.).” 5 Id. The prospect of such

5

unfairness supports transferring this action to the Southern District of Florida. See, e.g., Jolly v.

6

Purdue Pharma L.P., No. 05-CV-1452H, 2005 WL 2439197, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2005)

7

(“Litigation of related claims in the same tribunal is strongly favored because it facilitates

8

efficient, economical and expeditious pre-trial proceedings and discovery and avoid duplicitous

9

litigation and inconsistent results.”) (internal quotations and alteration omitted). In view of the
overall fairness, convenience, and efficiency gains, the Court concludes that the benefits of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

transfer outweigh the disadvantages, and that the Southern District of Florida is a more appropriate

12

forum for this case.

13
14

III.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to transfer venue. The

15
16

Clerk is DIRECTED to transfer the case to the Southern District of Florida, and to close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

CONCLUSION

Dated: 3/16/18
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5

26
27
28

Plaintiffs argue that transfer is inappropriate under the “first to file” rule, which is designed to
prevent forum shopping. See Opp. at 7–10. But the first to file rule “is not a rigid or inflexible
rule to be mechanically applied, but rather is to be applied with a view to the dictates of sound
judicial administration.” Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 95 (9th Cir. 1982).
Given the substantial advantages to transfer, including a reduced risk of forum shopping, the Court
finds that the rule does not preclude transfer here.
6