Hohenberg v. Ferrero USA, Inc

Filing 33

RESPONSE in Opposition re 19 MOTION for Change Venue filed by Athena Hohenberg, Laura Rude-Barbato. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Plaintiff Athena Hohenberg in Opposition to Ferrero's Motion for Transfer of Venue, # 2 Declaration of Plaintiff Laura Rude-Barbato in Opposition to Ferrero's Motion for Transfer of Venue, # 3 Declaration of Jack Fitzgerald in Opposition to Ferrero's Motion for Transfer of Venue, # 4 Unopposed Ex Parte Motion to File Documents Under Seal, # 5 Proof of Service)(Fitzgerald, John) (ag). Modified on 5/4/2011 to create motion (ag).

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1
2
3
4
5

LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
RONALD A. MARRON (175650)
3636 4th Avenue, Suite 202
San Diego, California 92103
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

10

THE WESTON FIRM
GREGORY S. WESTON (239944)
JACK FITZGERALD (257370)
888 Turquoise Street
San Diego, CA 92109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

11

INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL

6
7
8
9

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16
17
18

IN RE FERRERO LITIGATION
______________________________________
ATHENA HOHENBERG & LAURA RUDEBARBATO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,

19

22

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
FERRERO’S MOTION FOR
TRANSFER OF VENUE
Judge: The Honorable Marilyn L. Huff

20
21

CASE NO. 3:11-CV-00205-H-CAB

Plaintiffs,
v.

Date: May 16, 2011
Time: 10:30 a.m.
Location: Courtroom 13

FERRERO U.S.A, INC., a foreign corporation,

23
24

Defendant.

25
26
27
28
IN RE FERRERO, NO. 3:11-CV-00205-H-CAB
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................................. ii 

3

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................1 

4
5

RELEVANT FACTS ...............................................................................................................................1 
A. 

Plaintiffs Have Substantial Contacts with this District ................................................................1 

B. 

Ferrero Has Substantial Contacts with California and this District .............................................2 

6
7
1. 

8

Ferrero Sells Significant Amounts of Nutella in California.............................................2 
a. 

Ferrero’s “Food” Sales ............................................................................... 2 

10

b. 

Ferrero’s “Club” Sales ................................................................................ 2 

11

c. 

Ferrero’s “Mass” Sales ............................................................................... 3 

12

d. 

Ferrero’s Distribution to California Customers ............................................. 3 

9

13

2. 

Ferrero’s Nutella Spokesperson, Connie Evers, Throws “Nutella Parties” in
California .........................................................................................................................4 

15

3. 

Ferrero Disseminates False & Misleading Advertising in California ..............................4 

16

4. 

Ferrero Works with California Vendors & Distributors ..................................................4 

17

5. 

Ferrero Sends Employees Into California to Sell Nutella ................................................4 

14

18

C. 

19

ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................................................6 

20

A. 

Legal Standard Governing Motions to Transfer Venue Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ...................6 

21

B. 

The Private Factors Weigh Against Transfer ...............................................................................8 

22

Ferrero’s Sale of Nutella in the United States is a Multinational Effort ......................................4 

1. 

23

Plaintiffs’ Choice of Forum .............................................................................................8 
a. 

The Parties’ Contacts with Forum ................................................................. 9 

b. 

Contacts Relating to Plaintiffs’ Cause of Action ........................................... 10 

24
25
26
27

2. 

Convenience of the Parties .............................................................................................11 
a. 

Differences in Costs of Litigation ................................................................ 11 

28
i
IN RE FERRERO, NO. 3:11-CV-00205-H-CAB
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

b. 

1
2

3. 

3

The Substantial Inconvenience to Plaintiffs if Forced to Litigate in New
Jersey ........................................................................................................ 13 

Convenience of Witnesses & Access to Evidence .........................................................14 
a. 

Convenience of the Party Witnesses ............................................................ 16 

b. 

Convenience of Non-Party Witnesses and Availability of Compulsory
Process to Compel Them if Unwilling to Testify ........................................... 17 

c. 

Ease of Access to Sources of Proof .............................................................. 20 

4
5
6
7

C. 

The Public Factors Weigh Against Transfer ..............................................................................20 

8
1. 

Interest of Justice: Efficiency and Related Pending Litigation ......................................20 

2. 

The State Most Familiar with Governing Law ..............................................................22 

3. 

California’s Public Policy ..............................................................................................22 

4. 

The Relative Court Congestion and Time to Trial of Each Forum ................................24 

9
10
11
12
13

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................24 

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ii
IN RE FERRERO, NO. 3:11-CV-00205-H-CAB
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1
2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases

3
4

A.J. Indus. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 503 F.2d 384 (9th Cir. 1974) ...................................................................... 7

5

ADS Security L.P. v. Advanced Detection Security Servs., Inc.,
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27903 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2010) .......................................................... 14

6
7
8

Affymetrix, Inc. v. Synteni, Inc., 28 F. Supp. 2d 192 (D. Del. 1998) ..................................................... 15

9

Allstar Mktg. Group, LLC v. Your Store Online, LLC, 666 F. Supp.
2d 1109 (C.D. Cal. 2009) .............................................................................................................. 16

10

Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods, Inc., 946 F.2d 622 (9th Cir. 1991) ..................................................... 21

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Ansel Adams Publ’g Rights Trust v. PRS Media Partners, LLC,
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126791 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2010) .............................................................. 7
Applied Elastomerics, Inc. v. Z-Man Fishing Prods., Inc., 2006
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75339 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2006) ............................................................ 16, 20, 21
Berenson v. Nat’l Fin. Servs., LLC, 319 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C.
2004) ............................................................................................................................................. 22
Bibo v. Federal Express, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78388 (N.D.
Cal. Oct. 10, 2007) .......................................................................................................... 6, 8, 11, 20
Bohara v. Backus Hosp. Med. Benefit Plan, 390 F. Supp. 2d 957
(C.D. Cal. 2005) ............................................................................................................................ 14
Brackett v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 619 F. Supp. 2d 810 (N.D. Cal.
2008) ............................................................................................................................................. 17

23

Brockey v. Moore, 107 Cal. App. 4th 86 (2003) .................................................................................... 16

24

Brody v. Am. Med. Ass’n, 337 F. Supp. 611 (S.D.N.Y. 1971) ............................................................... 22

25
26

Buckland v. Threshold Enterprises, Ltd., 155 Cal. App. 4th 798
(2007) ............................................................................................................................................ 16

27
28

Church & Dwight v. Mayer Labs., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
103939 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2010)..................................................................................................... 12
ii
IN RE FERRERO, NO. 3:11-CV-00205-H-CAB
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 135 Cal. App. 4th 663
(2006) ............................................................................................................................................ 16

2
3

Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp.,
35 Cal. 3d 197 (1983) ................................................................................................................... 16

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Commodities Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270
(9th Cir. 1979) ................................................................................................................................. 7
Continental Airlines, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc., 805 F. Supp.
1392 (S.D. Tex. 1992) ................................................................................................................... 17
Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 472 F. Supp. 2d
1183 (S.D. Cal. 2007) ................................................................................................................... 18
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, 2008 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 84978 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2008)............................................................................... 7, 9, 21
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Lubchenco, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
119794 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2009) ............................................................................................ 8, 19
Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31688
(N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2011) ........................................................................................... 14, 19, 21, 24
Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834 (9th
Cir. 1986) .............................................................................................................................. 6, 7, 17

17
18

Dilmore v. Alion Sci. & Tech. Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43244
(W.D. Pa. Apr. 21, 2011) .................................................................................................. 12, 15, 17

19
20

DPIX, LLC v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
38130 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2011) ............................................................................................ 17, 19

21
22

Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 372 F. Supp. 2d 530 (N.D. Cal
2005) ............................................................................................................................................. 22

23
24
25
26
27
28

Fabus Corp. v. Asiana Express Corp., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
2568 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2001) ........................................................................................................ 8
Fellus v. Sterne, Agee & Leach, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
33704 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2011) .................................................................................................. 13
Florens Container v. Cho Yang Shipping, 245 F. Supp. 2d 1086
(N.D. Cal. 2002) ............................................................................................................................ 14
iii
IN RE FERRERO, NO. 3:11-CV-00205-H-CAB
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

Gatdula v. CRST Int’l, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13706 (E.D.
Cal. Feb. 8, 2011) ............................................................................................................................ 7

2
3
4

Getz v. Boeing Co., 547 F. Supp. 2d 1080 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ....................................................... 7, 17, 22
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare, L.P. v. Merix Pharm.
Corp., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40007 (D.N.J. May 10, 2005) ...................................................... 10

5
6

Haley v. Cohen & Steers Capital Mgmt., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
24849 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2011) ................................................................................................. 7, 9

7
8

Hartfield v. Offshore Oil Servs., Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
69469 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 2006).................................................................................................. 16

9
10

Healthtrac Corp. v. Catepillar Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25272
(N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2005) .............................................................................................................. 12

11
12
13

In re Geopharma, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8885 (S.D.N.Y.
May 11, 2005) ................................................................................................................................. 8
In re Nat’l Presto Indus., 347 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2003) ........................................................................ 11

14
15

In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009) ..................................................................................... 16

16

In re Toyota Motor Corp. Prius Hid Headlamp Prods. Liab. Litig.,
MDL No. 2198, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128416 (J.P.M.L.
Nov. 30, 2010) .............................................................................................................................. 20

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

In re Yahoo! Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20605 (C.D. Cal. Mar.
10, 2008) ....................................................................................................................................... 10
IP Innovation, L.L.C. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 2005 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 11892 (N.D. Ill. June 13, 2005) ......................................................................... 20, 24
Ironworkers Local Union No. 68 & Participating Employers
Health & Welfare Fund, et al. v. Amgen, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 8740 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2008) ................................................................................... 22, 23

24
25

Johansson v. Cent. Garden & Pet Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
130449 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2010) .................................................................................................... 6

26
27

Jonathan Brown, Inc. v. Venetian Casino Resort, LLC, 2007 WL
4532214 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2007) .............................................................................................. 17

28
iv
IN RE FERRERO, NO. 3:11-CV-00205-H-CAB
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................... 6

2

King v. Johnson Wax Assocs., Inc., 565 F. Supp. 711 (D. Md.
1983) ............................................................................................................................................. 23

3
4

Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2005) ............................................................... 21

5

Meijer, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 544 F. Supp. 2d 995 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ..................................................... 23

6
7

Metz v. U.S. Life Ins. Co., 674 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (C.D. Cal. 2009) ....................................................... 19

8

Milton v. TruePosition, Inc., 2009 WL 323036 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ........................................................... 9

9
10

NBA Props., Inc. v. Salvino, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3799
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2000) ...................................................................................................... passim

11

Pacesetter Sys, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93 (9th Cir. 1982) ..................................................... 21

12
13
14

Parrish v. NFL Players Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43732 (N.D.
Cal. June 4, 2007) ........................................................................................................................... 9
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) ................................................................................... 9

15
16

Ragold, Inc. v. Ferrero, U.S.A., Inc., 506 F. Supp. 117 (N.D. Ill.
1980) ............................................................................................................................................. 16

17
18
19

Reid-Ashman Mfg., Inc. v. Swanson Semiconductor Serv., L.L.C.,
2006 WL 3290416 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2006).............................................................................. 14
Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358 (C.D. Cal. 1997) ........................................................... 21

20
21

Roling v. E*Trade Sec., LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123714
(N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) ........................................................................................................... 8, 9

22
23

Saleh v. Titan Corp., 361 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (S.D. Cal. 2005).................................................... 13, 14, 17

24

Schott v. Ivy Asset Mgmt. Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113674
(N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2010) ............................................................................................................ 6, 9

25
26

SEC v. Rose Fund, LLC, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22491 (N.D. Cal.
Jan. 9, 2004) .................................................................................................................................. 14

27
28
v
IN RE FERRERO, NO. 3:11-CV-00205-H-CAB
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

Sec. Investor Protection Corp. v. Vigman, 764 F.2d 1309 (9th Cir.
1995) ............................................................................................................................................... 7

2
3

Sequal Techs., Inc. v. Stern, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37007 (S.D.
Cal. Apr. 4, 2011)............................................................................................................................ 7

4
5
6

Shultz v. Hyatt Vacation Mktg. Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
24692 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2011) ............................................................................................ passim
Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1988) ............................................................. 7

7
8

Stewart Org. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988) ................................................................................ 6, 7

9

Student Advantage, Inc. v. Int’l Student Exch. Cards, Inc., 2000
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13138 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2000) ............................................................... 10, 18

10
11

STX, Inc. v. Trik Stik, Inc., 708 F. Supp. 1551 (N.D. Cal. 1988) ........................................................... 16

12

Sunds Defibrator v. Durametal Corp., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
1859 (D. Del. Jan.22, 1997) .................................................................................................... 11, 14

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Transperfect Global, Inc. v. Motionpoint Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 99947 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2010) ..................................................................................... 17
Unique Prod. Solutions, Ltd. v. Otis Prods., 2010 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 137857 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 21, 2010) ............................................................................ 12, 23
Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964) ......................................................................................... 20
Van Slyke v. Capital One Bank, 503 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (N.D. Cal.
2007) ............................................................................................................................................. 22

22

Vice v. Woodline USA, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8014 (N.D.
Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) ........................................................................................................................ 24

23

Williams v. Bowman, 157 F. Supp. 2d 1103 (N.D. Cal. 2001) ................................................................ 7

24
25

Yumul v. Smart Balance, Inc., 733 F. Supp. 2d 1117 (C.D. Cal.
May 24, 2010) ............................................................................................................................... 16

26
27
28
vi
IN RE FERRERO, NO. 3:11-CV-00205-H-CAB
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

Statutes

2

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ................................................................................................................................. 6

3
4

Rules

5

D. N.J. Civ. L.R. 101.1(c)(4) .................................................................................................................12

6

D. N.J. Ct. R. 1:21-2(2)(c)(4) .................................................................................................................12

7

S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 26.1(a) .....................................................................................................................11

8
9
10

Other Authorities
Manual For Complex Litigation, Third (1995) ......................................................................................21

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
vii
IN RE FERRERO, NO. 3:11-CV-00205-H-CAB
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

INTRODUCTION

2

Athena Hohenberg and Laura Rude-Barbato, Plaintiffs in this consolidated action, respectfully

3

submit this memorandum in opposition to Ferrero’s motion for transfer of venue to the District of

4

New Jersey (Dkt. No. 19). In support of their Opposition, Plaintiffs also rely on the concurrently-filed

5

Declarations of Athena Hohenberg, Laura Rude-Barbato, and Jack Fitzgerald (and exhibits thereto1),

6

and the Master Consolidated Complaint (Dkt. No. 14, the “MCC”).

7

As the proponent of transfer, Ferrero had the burden of showing specific facts and information

8

justifying disturbing Plaintiffs’ choice of forum. Ferrero’s effort falls woefully short, asserting only

9

conclusory arguments that venue should “plainly” be in New Jersey (Mot. at 8:12) because, “[p]lainly,

10

the key witnesses” are there (id. at 9:15-16). Ferrero’s motion should therefore be denied even without

11

regard to Plaintiffs’ strong showing below that the applicable factors weigh against transfer.

12
13

RELEVANT FACTS
A.

Plaintiffs Have Substantial Contacts with this District

14

Plaintiffs brought this action in this District because they live and work in this District, and

15

because they purchased Nutella in this District in reliance on Ferrero’s deceptive labeling and

16

advertising, which Ferrero disseminated intending for them to see in this District, and which they did

17

see in this District.

18

Plaintiff Athena Hohenberg is a resident of San Diego County and has lived and worked in

19

San Diego since 1996. She currently works in Imperial Beach, California. (MCC ¶ 10; Hohenberg

20

Dec. ¶¶ 2, 4.) Ms. Hohenberg is a single mother of a three-year-old daughter, and also lives with an

21

18-year-old step daughter. She purchased Nutella from the San Diego Navy Commissary, and viewed

22

Ferrero’s Nutella television commercials in San Diego. (MCC ¶ 26; Hohenberg Dec. ¶¶ 3, 5.)

23

Plaintiff Laura Rude-Barbato is a resident of San Diego County, and has lived and worked in

24

San Diego her entire adult life. She also currently works in Imperial Beach, California. (MCC ¶ 11;

25

Rude-Barbato Dec. ¶¶ 1-2, 4.) Ms. Rude-Barbato has three children, aged 16, 13 and 7. She purchased

26
1

27
28

Pursant to the Protective Order entered in this action (Dkt. No. 32), Plaintiffs have concurrently filed
an unopposed ex parte motion to seal exhibits Ferrero designated “Confidential,” including excerpts
from the April 14, 2011 Deposition Transcript of Ferrero’s CEO, Bernard Kreilmann (“Kreilmann
Dep. Tr.”), attached to the Fitzgerald Dec. as Exhibit B.
1
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

Nutella in a Vons grocery store and a Costco, both in San Diego, and viewed Ferrero’s Nutella

2

television commercials in San Diego. (MCC ¶ 30; Rude-Barbato Dec. ¶¶ 3, 5.)

3

B.

4
5

Ferrero Has Substantial Contacts with California and this District
Ferrero has been registered to do business in California since 1980 (Fitzgerald Dec. Ex. A)

and, as discussed below, has substantial, ongoing contact with California.

6

1.

7

During the period of January 1, 2007 through February 2011,2 Ferrero had net sales of Nutella

Ferrero Sells Significant Amounts of Nutella in California

8

of

9

largest market for Nutella, while New Jersey is much smaller, even in relation to population.3

. (PX-5, Fitzgerald Dec. Ex. C.) Ferrero’s documents show California is probably its

10

a.

Ferrero’s “Food” Sales

11
12

(Kleinmann Dep. Tr. 90:12-15.) Ferrero’s documents (PX-6, Fitzgerald Dec. Ex. D) show California

13

sales of Nutella from 2007 through March 2011 (for both 13oz and 26.5oz jars) as follows:

14

52 weeks
ending 12/07

15
16

52 weeks
ending 12/09

52 weeks
ending 12/10

52 weeks
ending 3/20/11

US Sales

17

52 weeks
ending 12/08

CA Sales

18

CA Sales %

19
20

While Ferrero was unable to provide similar data for New Jersey or other states, its CEO speculated

21

only that

22

might have a greater percentage of sales. (Kleinmann Dep. Tr. 94:19-95:13.)
b.

23

Ferrero’s “Club” Sales

Ferrero produced sales data from two “club” sources—Costco and Sam’s Club. (Fitzgerald

24

Dec. Ex. E.) The data show these major retailers sell between

25

California:

26

2

27

3

28

of their Nutella in

Plaintiffs, however, allege a class period beginning January 1, 2000. (See MCC ¶ 119.)

As a baseline, the 2010 census data show California currently has about 12% of the nation’s
population while New Jersey has about 3%. See 2010 Census Brief, at 2, Table 1, available at
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-01.pdf.
2
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1
2
3

Costco 26.5oz Nutella 2-Pack
Unit Sales

52wks Ending 4.2.10

52wks Ending 4.1.11

52wks Ending 4.2.10

52wks Ending 4.1.11

US Sales

4

CA Sales

5

CA Sales %

6
7
8
9

Sam’s Club 13oz 3-Pack Unit
Sales
US Sales
CA Sales

10
11

CA Sales %

12
13

c.

Ferrero’s “Mass” Sales

Ferrero produced sales data from two “mass” sources—WalMart and Target. (Fitzgerald Dec.

14

Ex. E.) While WalMart’s small presence in California meant it only sold between

15

Nutella in California during the past two years (while selling only about

16

California accounts for about

17

20

in New Jersey),

of Target’s overall sales:

Target 13oz Unit Sales

Target 26.5oz Unit Sales

52wks Ending 4.2.10

18
19

of its

48wks Ending 4.1.11

US Sales
CA Sales

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

NJ Sales
CA Sales %
NJ Sales %
d.

Ferrero’s Distribution to California Customers

Ferrero’s documents show that from January 2007 to the present,

of its Nutella

shipments went to California customers. (See Fitzgerald Dec. ¶¶ 7-8.)

28
3
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

2.

2

As detailed in the Master Consolidated Complaint (MCC ¶¶ 82-88), Connie Evers is a

3

registered dietitian, author of a book, now in its third edition, titled “How to Talk Nutrition to Kids,”

4

and purported children’s nutrition expert who Ferrero pays to render opinions supporting its false and

5

misleading advertising campaign. (See Kreilmann Dep. Tr. 62:4-5.) It is Evers’ purported nutritional

6

expertise and advice which underlies the entire “Nutella is a healthy breakfast for kids” campaign that

7

Plaintiffs challenge. This past March, Nutella’s nutritional spokesperson was in Orange County telling

8

California

9

http://www.feltstories.com/2011/03/nutella-party-with-registered-dietitian.html.4

Ferrero’s Nutella Spokesperson, Connie Evers, Throws “Nutella Parties” in California

mothers

to

feed

Nutella

to

their

children

for

breakfast.

See

10

3.

11

Plaintiffs allege Ferrero’s false and misleading advertising occurs on the labels of Nutella, in

12

television commercials, on the web, and in print advertising. All forms of those media are

13

intentionally disseminated by Ferrero in California and this District.

Ferrero Disseminates False & Misleading Advertising in California

14

4.

15

Plaintiffs allege three television commercials for Nutella are false and misleading (MCC ¶¶

16

Ferrero Works with California Vendors & Distributors

90-96).

(Kreilmann Dep. Tr. 33:13-23.) Ferrero also engages

17

in Irvine California, to provide

services for the sale of

18

Nutella across California (id. 24:15-26:18); Aspen Logistics, in Ontario California (with a location in

19

Temecula), to provide third-party logistics services (and previously OHL, in Riverside California, for

20

the same function, id. 14:22-17:15); and

21

Angeles (id. 61:25-62:19, 63:23-64:12, 69:17-23, 71:18-24.)

, an

with offices in Los

22

5.

23

Ferrero has a 15-person sales force in California (Kreilmann Dec. ¶ 4, Dkt. No. 19-2).

24

C.

Ferrero Sends Employees Into California to Sell Nutella

Ferrero’s Sale of Nutella in the United States is a Multinational Effort

25

While Ferrero’s headquarters are in Somerset, New Jersey, the sale of Nutella in the United

26

States involves entities scattered all over the world. For example, the Nutella sold in the United States

27

is manufactured by Ferrero Canada, Ltd., which is headquartered in Toronto, Ontario. Nutella is

28

4

See also video of the same, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gocrTJN0DPw.
4
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

actually produced in Brantford, Ontario. (Kreilmann Dec. ¶ 5.) Facilities there include a factory with a

2

production line, temporary warehousing, and offices related to the management of the factory.

3

Toronto facilities include administration, marketing, and sales. (Kreilmann Dep. Tr. 13:14-14:7.)

4

Ferrero U.S.A. has a contract of supply with Ferrero Canada (id. 13:10-14), and Ferrero Canada’s

5

employees were involved in making the decision to

6

(see id. 18:12-21:5, 51:10-53:17, 85:2-86:6).

7

Ferrero uses 3PLs5 to move product from Brantford to its retail customers in the United States,

8

including Aspen Warehouse, which has two locations that appear to be within 100 miles of this

9

District.6 Before using Aspen, Ferrero used OHL, which has a location that appears to be within 100

10

miles of this District.7 Ferrero uses a similar outfit in Illinois, and one in New Jersey. Ferrero also

11

relies on about

12

Tr. 24:15-26:18, 126:20-127:12.)

scattered across the country, including

in California. (Kreilmann Dep.

13

Ferrero also relies heavily upon its relationship with its parent, Ferrero International, in

14

making business decisions affecting the sale of Nutella in the United States. As Ferrero’s CEO

15

testified,

16
17

(Kreilmann Dep. Tr. 131:2024.) This includes a

18

(Id. 132:5-8.) As with

19

Ferrero Canada, Ferrero International was involved in the decision to

20

(Id. 132:15-133:18.)

21

//

22

//

23

//

24
25
26
27
28

5

Common abbreviation for third-party logistics provider, whose typical services include
transportation, warehousing, distribution, customs brokerage, freight forwarding, trade consulting
services, etc. Ferrero uses 3PLs primarily for warehousing and transportation. (See Kreilmann Dep.
Tr. 15:19-16:15.)
6

1901 California Street, Redlands, CA 92374 and 43385 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590.

7

1580 Eastridge Avenue, Riverside, CA 92507.
5
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1
2

ARGUMENT
A.

Legal Standard Governing Motions to Transfer Venue Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)

3

A district court “may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might

4

have been brought” “for the convenience of parties and witnesses” and “in the interest of justice.”8 28

5

U.S.C. § 1404(a). Under this section, the district court has discretion to adjudicate motions for transfer

6

“according to an ‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.’” Jones v.

7

GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Stewart Org. v. Ricoh Corp.,

8

487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988)). “The Court must consider public factors relating to ‘the interest of justice’

9

and private factors relating to ‘the convenience of the parties and witnesses.’” Shultz v. Hyatt Vacation

10

Mktg. Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24692, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2011) (citing Decker Coal Co.

11

v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986)). See generally Schott v. Ivy Asset

12

Mgmt. Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113674, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2010) (

13

16

Private factors generally concern the relative impact of the venue on the private parties
participating in the litigation, their access to evidence, the availability of compulsory
process, “and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and
inexpensive.” Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947). Public factors concern
relative institutional advantages, burdens on the public, and the general interest in having
disputes adjudicated where there is a genuine interest in the controversy.)

17

Such factors may include (1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and

18

executed,9 (2) the state that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff’s choice of forum,

19

(4) the respective parties’ contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of

20

action in the chosen forum, (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the

21

availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses (8) the ease

22

of access to sources of proof, and (9) the forum state’s relevant public policy. See Jones, 211 F.3d at

23

498-99. Other factors California courts have considered in this analysis,10 and which are relevant here,

14
15

24

26

8

Plaintiffs do not dispute this action could have been brought in the District of New Jersey.

9

25

Because no agreements are at issue, this factor is neutral.

10

27
28

“The court has broad discretion to address some of the[ Jones factors] or other factors based on the
particular facts of each case.” Johansson v. Cent. Garden & Pet Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130449,
at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2010) (citing Bibo v. Federal Express, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78388
(N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2007)).
6
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

include (10) the relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum,11 and (11) related pending

2

litigation.12 “No single factor is dispositive and a district court has broad discretion to adjudicate

3

motions to transfer on a case-by-case basis.” Gatdula v. CRST Int’l, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

4

13706, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2011) (citing Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, 2008 U.S.

5

Dist. LEXIS 84978 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2008), in turn citing Stewart, 487 U.S. at 29; Sparling v.

6

Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 639 (9th Cir. 1988)).

7

As the moving party, Ferrero carried the burden of showing that transfer is warranted.

8

Commodities Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979); see also Sequal

9

Techs., Inc. v. Stern, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37007, at *8 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2011) (citation omitted)

10

(“The moving party bears the burden of establishing these factors weigh in favor of transfer.”).

11

“The general rule is that the plaintiff’s choice of forum is to be given substantial weight.”

12

Ansel Adams Publ’g Rights Trust v. PRS Media Partners, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126791, at *6

13

(N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2010) (citation omitted). “The defendant must make a strong showing of

14

inconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiff’s choice of forum.” Decker, 805 F.2d at 843; see also

15

Shultz, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24692, at *8 (citations omitted) (“Generally, the plaintiff’s choice of

16

forum is treated with great deference, and only significant inconvenience or unfairness will justify

17

transfer.”); Sec. Investor Protection Corp. v. Vigman, 764 F.2d 1309, 1317 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[U]nless

18

the balance of the factors is strongly in favor of the defendants, the plaintiff’s choice of forum should

19

rarely be disturbed.”); accord Getz v. Boeing Co., 547 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1086 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (even

20

where “Plaintiffs’ choice of forum merits only minimal deference,” denying transfer where defendant

21

“fail[ed] to meet its burden of establishing that the balance of inconveniences weighs heavily in favor

22

of transfer to” another district).

23

While paying lip service to the Jones factors (Mot. at 6), Ferrero divides its argument into only

24

two subsections: “Interest of Justice” (id. at 6-8) and “Convenience of Parties and Witnesses” (id. at 8-

25

10). For its “Interest of Justice” argument, Ferrero argues only that (1) the pending Glover action, and

26

11

27

See Haley v. Cohen & Steers Capital Mgmt., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24849, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb.
24, 2011) (citation omitted); Clark v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136510, at *6
(N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2010) (citing Williams v. Bowman, 157 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2001)).

28

12

See A.J. Indus. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 503 F.2d 384 (9th Cir. 1974).
7
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

(2) New Jersey’s supposedly greater interest weigh in favor of transfer. (Mot. at 6-7.) For its

2

“Convenience of Parties and Witness” argument, Ferrero asserts only that (1) plaintiff’s choice of

3

forum is entitled to little deference because this is a class action and this district supposedly has little

4

connection to the operative facts, (2) relevant employees and third parties supposedly reside in New

5

Jersey, and (3) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party

6

witnesses located in New Jersey and New York (i.e., within the New Jersey court’s “100 mile

7

bubble”) supposedly justifies transfer. (Mot. at 8-10.) Ferrero’s arguments are wrong.

8

B.

9

The Private Factors Weigh Against Transfer
1.

Plaintiffs’ Choice of Forum

10

While Ferrero is correct that the plaintiff choice of forum in putative class actions is generally

11

given less weight than in other contexts (Mot. at 8), “affording less deference to representative

12

plaintiffs does not mean they are deprived of all deference in their choice of forum,” and “that choice

13

should nonetheless be honored unless defendant[] make[s] a convincing showing that venue should be

14

changed.” In re Geopharma, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8885, at *2-5 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2005)

15

(emphasis added, citation and internal quotations omitted); accord Bibo, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

16

78388, at *6 (“Plaintiffs’ choice of forum remains significant in a class action where it is preferable to

17

other forums in administering the action and protecting the class.”).

18

Moreover, “in a class action, ‘[i]n judging the weight to be accorded [plaintiff’s] choice of

19

forum, consideration must be given to the extent of both [plaintiff’s] and the [defendant’s] contacts

20

with the forum, including those relating to [plaintiff’s] cause of action . . . .’” Roling v. E*Trade Sec.,

21

LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123714, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (alterations in original)

22

(quoting Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987)); accord Ctr. for Biological Diversity v.

23

Lubchenco, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119794, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2009) (“[D]istrict court

24

opinions have . . . stated the standard in the disjunctive: ‘The degree to which courts defer to the

25

plaintiff’s chosen venue is substantially reduced where the plaintiff’s venue choice is not its residence

26

or where the forum chosen lacks a significant connection to the activities alleged in the complaint.’”

27

(quoting Fabus Corp. v. Asiana Express Corp., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2568, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5,

28

2001))); Bibo, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78388, at *6 (“The plaintiff’s choice of forum is given less
8
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

weight where the plaintiff does not reside in the selected forum and the forum has no interest in the

2

alleged unlawful activity. These exceptions are not applicable here because the named plaintiffs reside

3

in this district, and the court has a clear interest in protecting such residents against unlawful . . .

4

practices.”).

5
6
7

a.

The Parties’ Contacts with Forum

As demonstrated above, both Plaintiffs and Ferrero have extensive contacts with this District.
This factor therefore affords Plaintiffs’ choice of forum deference and so weighs against transfer.

8

Moreover, because “the reduced weight on plaintiff’s choice of forum in class actions serves

9

as a guard against the dangers of forum shopping,” Roling, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123714, at *9,

10

where, as here, representative plaintiffs reside in their chosen forum and were subject to Ferrero’s

11

unlawful conduct in this District, their choice is entitled to deference. See id. at *10 (In putative class

12

action, “[b]ecause there is no evidence that plaintiffs engaged in forum shopping and both plaintiffs

13

and defendant have significant contacts with the Northern District of California, plaintiffs’ choice of

14

forum carries significant weight.” (emphasis added)); see also Haley, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24849,

15

at *2 (“As plaintiff is a resident of this forum, her decision to file suit here is accorded substantial

16

weight . . . .”); Kempthorne, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84978, at *9 (citation omitted) (“[A] plaintiff’s

17

choice of forum is ordinarily given significant weight . . . . This is especially true when the plaintiff

18

resides in the forum . . . .”); Schott, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113674, at *10-12 (affording plaintiff’s

19

choice of forum “substantial weight” where plaintiff lived and worked in California, had his office and

20

home located in the District, and where many of the alleged interactions between him and defendant

21

occurred in California); Parrish v. NFL Players Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43732, at *16-17 (N.D.

22

Cal. June 4, 2007) (because representative plaintiffs would “bear a great deal of responsibility in

23

representing the class” if one was certified, their “choice of forum still deserves deference, and this

24

factor weighs against transfer.”); accord Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 244 (1981)

25

(presumption in favor of plaintiff’s choice of forum is especially strong where plaintiff brings action

26

in home state).

27

Even Ferrero concedes, as it must, that this principle weighs against transfer. (Mot. at 8 n.5

28

(citing Milton v. TruePosition, Inc., 2009 WL 323036, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (finding plaintiffs’
9
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

choice of forum should be accorded “some deference” where brought in plaintiffs’ home forum).)

2

b.

Contacts Relating to Plaintiffs’ Cause of Action

3

Plaintiffs’ contacts with this District relating to their causes of action are substantial. Ferrero

4

argues Plaintiffs’ choice of forum should be disregarded because “the challenged conduct occurred in

5

New Jersey,” but cites for that proposition only a single inapposite case expressly limited to securities

6

actions, see In re Yahoo! Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20605, at *11 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2008)

7

(“Because this is a securities fraud action, . . . .”). And, Ferrero provides no analysis. (See Mot. at 9:4-

8

8.)

9

At issue in Yahoo were allegedly false and misleading public statements defendants made

10

regarding Yahoo!’s business model, financial results, continued sales and earnings growth, acquisition

11

of another company, and more. Id., at *2. Several courts have recognized that is dissimilar to the

12

situation here, where Plaintiffs were exposed to Ferrero’s false and misleading advertising in this

13

forum, which weighs against transfer. See GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare, L.P. v. Merix

14

Pharm. Corp., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40007, at *18 (D.N.J. May 10, 2005) (Where 4.5% of

15

defendant’s sales occurred in district, retailers in district carried and displayed defendant’s product,

16

and defendant directed radio and television advertisements at listeners in the district, “[t]hese contacts

17

with New Jersey show that the underlying false advertising dispute has a connection to New Jersey,”

18

which “weigh[s] in favor of keeping the action in New Jersey.”); Student Advantage, Inc. v. Int’l

19

Student Exch. Cards, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13138, at *21-22 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2000) (“ISEC

20

makes false statements and competes unfairly in selling its discount cards in this District via the

21

internet and through businesses located here. The locus of operative facts is thus in this District, even

22

if ISEC’s principal place of business is elsewhere or ISEC sells its discount cards elsewhere.”); NBA

23

Props., Inc. v. Salvino, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3799, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2000) (

24
25
26
27

Here, Plush Toys have been sold in this District through the medium of defendant’s
Internet site and, allegedly, through the medium of New York dealers and distributors
who are part of the defendant’s national network. Consequently, regardless of where the
Plush Toys were manufactured, where defendant’s business location is, or where else the
Plush Toys have been sold, the locus of the operative events in the instant action is New
York.).

28
10
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

2.

2

While Ferrero’s headquarters are in the District of New Jersey so that litigating there is

3

unquestionably more convenient to Ferrero, that alone cannot justify transfer because it would only

4

shift the inconvenience—and disproportionately at that—onto Plaintiffs. See In re Nat’l Presto Indus.,

5

347 F.3d 662, 665 (7th Cir. 2003) (“When plaintiff and defendant are in different states there is no

6

choice of forum that will avoid imposing inconvenience; and when the inconvenience of the

7

alternative venues is comparable there is no basis for a change of venue; the tie is awarded to the

8

plaintiff . . . .”); Sunds Defibrator v. Durametal Corp., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1859, at *12-13 (D.

9

Del. Jan.22, 1997) (citation omitted, emphases in original) (

Convenience of the Parties

12

As to the overall respective convenience of the parties, the defendant has a slight edge,
but this slight tip of the balance of convenience stems not from evaluation of the transfer
criteria, but from the fact that it is almost always more convenient for a defendant to
litigate in its home district. That advantage, in and of itself without more is insufficient to
tip the balance in favor of depriving a plaintiff of its choice of forum.).

13

In addition, Ferrero has provided no basis for believing litigating in the Southern District of

14

California actually is inconvenient. To the contrary, Ferrero hired California attorneys with offices in

15

this District13 to represent it in both this litigation and Glover. Thus for hearings, depositions, in-

16

person meet-and-confers (see S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 26.1(a) (“If counsel have offices in the same county,

17

they are to meet in person.”)), and other attorney-driven litigation, this District should be more

18

convenient to Ferrero than New Jersey. Moreover, this forum is demonstrably convenient to Ferrero,

19

because it has voluntarily litigated in California before. See Huang, et al. v. Ferrero U.S.A., Inc., et

20

al., No. 3:98-cv-00795-FMS (N.D. Cal. Filed Mar. 2, 1998).14 “Given that Defendant has not

21

described any real inconvenience that would result for the parties if the motion is denied, . . . this

22

factor does not weigh in favor of transfer.” Bibo, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78388, at *7-8.

10
11

23

a.

Differences in Costs of Litigation

24

Ferrero does not address this factor, which weighs heavily against transfer. While litigating in

25

either forum would increase the travel costs of the distant party, transfer to New Jersey would impose

26
27

13
14

28

See http://www.wsgr.com/WSGR/Display.aspx?SectionName=locations/loc_sandiego.htm.

Ferrero did not apparently seek to transfer this action though other defendants did, see Dkt. No. 18
(Ferrero U.S.A.’ s Motion to Dismiss) & 19 (co-defendants’ Motion to, inter alia, Transfer Venue).
11
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

a substantial additional cost on Plaintiffs not imposed on Ferrero—the expense of hiring local counsel,

2

which New Jersey’s Local Rules require but California’s do not.

3

“Only an attorney at law of this Court may file papers, enter appearances for parties, sign

4

stipulations, or sign and receive payments on judgments, decrees or orders.” D. N.J. Civ. L.R.

5

101.1(c)(4). New Jersey also requires that any attorney admitted pro hac vice shall, “have all

6

pleadings, briefs and other papers filed with the court signed by an attorney of record authorized to

7

practice in this State, who shall be held responsible for them and for the conduct of the cause and of

8

the admitted attorney therein.” D. N.J. Ct. R. 1:21-2(2)(c)(4). These requirements impose substantial

9

responsibility on New Jersey local counsel. (See Fitzgerald Dec. ¶¶ 12-15 & Exs. G-H.)

10

A conservative estimate places the additional cost imposed upon Plaintiff by transfer to New

11

Jersey—solely due to the hiring of local counsel—at about $100,000 through trial. (See Fitzgerald

12

Dec. ¶¶ 16-18.) By contrast, Ferrero’s California lawyers have already been admitted pro hac vice in

13

the New Jersey Glover action, sponsored by a member of the firm’s New York office admitted in New

14

Jersey. (See Glover Dkt. No. 8.) Thus, New Jersey’s requirement for local counsel does not increase

15

Ferrero’s costs at all. See Unique Prod. Solutions, Ltd. v. Otis Prods., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137857,

16

at *23-24 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 21, 2010) (Denying transfer where, “[i]f this case were transferred . . . ,

17

Unique would likely need to obtain local counsel in and travel to New York on several occasions,

18

whereas Defendant has already incurred the costs of obtaining local counsel in this District.”)

19

Moreover, even if litigating in California increased Ferrero’s expenses, “corporations are

20

better-equipped than individuals to absorb increased litigation costs.” Shultz, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

21

24692, at *17 (citing Healthtrac Corp. v. Catepillar Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25272, at *12-13

22

(N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2005)); see also Dilmore v. Alion Sci. & Tech. Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

23

43244, at *24-25 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 21, 2011) (where defendant had 2010 sales exceeding $800 million

24

and individual plaintiff was unemployed, relative financial condition of the parties favored

25

maintaining action in plaintiff’s chosen forum); Church & Dwight v. Mayer Labs., Inc., 2010 U.S.

26

Dist. LEXIS 103939, at *31-32 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2010) (“[W]hile both parties would incur financial

27

burden by litigating in a form outside its home state, on balance, this factor tips slightly in favor of

28

Mayer in light of its smaller size and fewer resources.”); Fellus v. Sterne, Agee & Leach, Inc., 2011
12
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33704, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2011) (“The relative means of the parties also

2

weighs against transfer because Fellus is an individual whereas SAL is a corporation.”); Unique Prod.

3

Solutions, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137857, at *14, 23-24 (citation omitted) (

4
5
6

Defendant is a large manufacturer of consumer products distributed throughout the
country which is asking this Court to give significant weight to its own conveniences at
Unique’s expense, after allegedly violating a federal statute for at least the last four years.
Therefore, due to the unproportionate burden to be placed upon Unique if this lawsuit is
transferred . . . , this factor also weighs heavily in favor of denying Defendant’s Motion.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

*

*

*

Defendant, a “high volume manufacturer of consumer products” with a nationwide
distribution chain, is better suited than Unique, a qui tam relator attempting to protect the
public . . . to bear the costs of defending this cause of action in this District, particularly
because it is Defendant’s actions which gave rise to this suit. . . . In conclusion,
Defendant’s Motion is based solely on one premise—that transferring this case . . . would
be more convenient for the Defendant. Defendant’s failure to show more than a mere
shift in conveniences to justify a transfer of venue . . . support denial of Defendant’s
Motion.).
b.

The Substantial Inconvenience to Plaintiffs if Forced to Litigate in New Jersey

14

In addition to the expense they will incur, transfer presents a number of difficulties for

15

Plaintiffs. Ms. Hohenberg’s 3-year-old daughter has a medical condition and is currently undergoing

16

medical testing, diagnostics and evaluation to determine the cause of an apparent disability, and is also

17

involved in speech therapy. Ms. Hohenberg arranges her daughter’s appointments and care with

18

various health care providers and a speech therapist, and attends about 90% of those appointments,

19

ensuring that her daughter has transportation for the times she cannot get time off work. Having to

20

litigate in New Jersey would mean spending time away from her daughter and losing income during

21

whatever period she is in New Jersey to testify at deposition or trial, or appear for mediation or

22

hearings, which would probably preclude Ms. Hohenberg from further participating in this lawsuit.

23

(Hohenberg Dec. ¶¶ 5-6.)

24

Ms. Rude-Barbato lives with and cares for her three youngest children, aged 16, 13, and 7, and

25

her elderly, disabled mother. All three of Plaintiff’s children are involved in extracurricular activities

26

and sports programs, and rely on Plaintiff for transportation. Plaintiff’s mother suffers from back and

27

knee problems, causing her limited mobility, and suffers from psychological conditions that require

28

medication and treatment. As such, she relies completely on Ms. Rude-Barbato for her care and well13
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

being. Having to litigate in New Jersey would mean, for Ms. Rude-Barbato, facing practical and

2

financial difficulty, including finding and paying for babysitting and transportation for all three

3

children, and specialized in-home care for her mother, during whatever period she is in New Jersey to

4

testify at deposition or trial, or appear for mediation or hearings. (Rude-Barbato Dec. ¶¶ 5-8.)

5

3.

6

“The relative convenience to the witnesses is often recognized as the most important factor to

7

be considered in ruling on a motion under § 1404(a).” Saleh v. Titan Corp., 361 F. Supp. 2d 1152,

8

1160 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (quotation omitted). To carry its burden, a party moving for transfer on the

9

basis of witness convenience “must identify potential witnesses by name and describe their

10

testimony.” Id., at 1161-65. Moreover, “[i]n determining whether this factor weighs in favor of

11

transfer, the court must consider not simply how many witnesses each side has and the location of

12

each, but, rather, the court must consider the importance of the witnesses.” Id. at 1160-61. See also

13

Bohara v. Backus Hosp. Med. Benefit Plan, 390 F. Supp. 2d 957, 963 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (citations

14

omitted) (“[I]f the transfer is for the convenience of witnesses, defendant must name the witnesses it

15

wishes to call, the anticipated areas of their testimony and its relevance, and the reasons why the

16

present forum would present a hardship to them.”); Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, 2011 U.S. Dist.

17

LEXIS 31688, at *18 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2011) (“As moving party, Federal Defendants are ‘obligated

18

to identify the key witnesses to be called and to present a generalized statement of what their

19

testimony would include.’” (quoting Florens Container v. Cho Yang Shipping, 245 F. Supp. 2d 1086,

20

1093 (N.D. Cal. 2002))); Reid-Ashman Mfg., Inc. v. Swanson Semiconductor Serv., L.L.C., 2006 WL

21

3290416, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2006) (“To demonstrate an inconvenience to witnesses, the

22

moving party must identify relevant witnesses, state their location and describe their testimony and its

23

relevance.”); SEC v. Rose Fund, LLC, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22491, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2004)

24

(same); ADS Security L.P. v. Advanced Detection Security Servs., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27903,

25

at *11 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2010) (“A party seeking a transfer of venue must do more than make

26

general allegations that key witnesses are unavailable or are inconveniently located . . . . Rather, the

27

moving party must identify specific witnesses and outline the substance of their testimony.”); NBA

28

Props, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3799, at *14 (citations omitted) (“A party seeking transfer based on the

Convenience of Witnesses & Access to Evidence

14
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

convenience of the witnesses must provide the court with a specific list of probable witnesses who

2

will be inconvenienced by the current forum and a general statement of what the witnesses’ testimony

3

will cover.”). Accord Sunds, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1859, at *10-11 (“Because of the lack of

4

specificity as to these witnesses’ important to Durametal’s case and their availability, the Court is not

5

persuaded the possibility they may not attend trial is sufficient to dip the balance in favor of a

6

transfer.”).

7

Far from meeting its burden, Ferrero’s motion is devoid of any specifics, instead only asserting

8

in conclusory fashion that, “[p]lainly, the key witnesses in this action are located in New Jersey (or

9

elsewhere on the east coast) while none (besides plaintiffs themselves) are located in California.”

10

(Mot. at 9.) Ferrero fails to identify a single relevant witness by name, much less state their location

11

and describe their testimony and its relevance, or why this forum is inconvenient for them. Instead,

12

relying on the Declaration of Bernard Kreilmann (Dkt. No. 19-2), Ferrero asserts only that

13

“employees responsible for marketing, advertising and labeling the Nutella product, work at the

14

Company’s New Jersey Headquarters,” while its “third-party vendors used in connection with the

15

labeling, marketing and advertising of Nutella are primarily located in New Jersey and New York,

16

including Ferrero U.S.A.’s advertising agency, media planning & buying agency, and agency used to

17

design its labels.” (Kreilmann Dec. ¶¶ 3, 6.15). These conclusory arguments fall short. See Affymetrix,

18

Inc. v. Synteni, Inc., 28 F. Supp. 2d 192, 205 (D. Del. 1998) (

19

[W]ith respect to numerous “unnamed” individuals possibly residing in Silicon Valley
who might possess some knowledge about . . . facts giving rise to this lawsuit, the Court
affords them no weight in its “balance of convenience” analysis. Given the complete lack
of specificity with which these witnesses were identified and the absence of “adequate
information with respect to the content and materiality” of their testimony, the Court has
no choice but to discount them in its weighing test. (citation omitted)).

20
21
22
23

Dilmore, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43244, at *28 (“[S]ince Defendants bear the burden of showing that

24

inconvenience would make non-party witnesses unavailable for trial and because the Court finds that

25

they have not done so, this factor weighs in favor of Plaintiff.”); NBA Props, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

26

3799, at *15 (internal citation omitted) (“Defendant identifies its party witnesses simply as witnesses

27
28

15

Ferrero also asserts without specifics that “[a]lthough some vendors have offices elsewhere, . . .
Ferrero U.S.A.’s contacts within those companies are located in New Jersey and New York.”
15
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

‘associated with [defendant]’ who reside in California. Because defendant has failed to satisfy its

2

burden of specifically identifying the witnesses who will be inconvenienced, defendant’s motion to

3

transfer should be denied.” (alteration in original)).

4

In addition, while such conclusory assertions fail as a matter of law to demonstrate witness

5

inconvenience warranting transfer, they also ignore the nature of this false advertising case, where, “it

6

is apparent that the majority of witnesses will not be the occurrence-type witnesses suggested by the

7

defendants, but rather will be expert witnesses who testify as to the allegedly . . . misleading

8

commercials and as to the proof of damages.”16 Ragold, Inc. v. Ferrero, U.S.A., Inc., 506 F. Supp.

9

117, 121 (N.D. Ill. 1980) (denying Ferrero’s motion to transfer venue).

10

Plaintiffs’ claims only require them to show that the challenged statements were likely to

11

deceive the public under the reasonable consumer standard. See Yumul v. Smart Balance, Inc., 733 F.

12

Supp. 2d 1117, 1125 (C.D. Cal. May 24, 2010) (citing In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298, 312

13

(2009) (“A [common law] fraud deception must be actually false, known to be false by the perpetrator

14

and reasonably relied upon by a victim who incurs damages. None of these elements are required to

15

state a claim for injunctive relief under the UCL” (internal quotations and citation omitted)); Buckland

16

v. Threshold Enterprises, Ltd., 155 Cal. App. 4th 798, 801 (2007) (“To state a cause of action under

17

[the CLRA], it is necessary only to show that ‘members of the public are likely to be deceived.’ [ ]

18

Allegations of actual deception, reasonable reliance, and damage, are unnecessary,” quoting

19

Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp., 35 Cal. 3d 197, 211 (1983)

20

(quotation omitted)); Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 135 Cal. App. 4th 663, 682 (2006)

21

(same standard applies to FAL)).

22
23

Indeed, “the primary evidence” in a California law false advertising case such as this “is the
advertising.” Brockey v. Moore, 107 Cal. App. 4th 86, 100 (2003).

24

a.

25

Convenience of the Party Witnesses

In addition, Ferrero’s assertion that litigating in this forum would be inconvenient to its

26
16

27
28

Plaintiffs in this case have already retained a nutrition expert and a survey expert, Dr. Nathan D.
Wong, of UC-Irvine and UCLA, and have consulted a possible survey and statistical evidence expert.
Plaintiffs expect these experts, as well as a possible damages expert, to be their most important and
primary trial witnesses.
16
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

employees does not weigh in favor of transfer because party witnesses “can be compelled to testify

2

regardless of the forum in which the lawsuit is ultimately litigated.” Allstar Mktg. Group, LLC v. Your

3

Store Online, LLC, 666 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1132 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (citing, inter alia, Applied

4

Elastomerics, Inc. v. Z-Man Fishing Prods., Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75339 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6,

5

2006); STX, Inc. v. Trik Stik, Inc., 708 F. Supp. 1551, 1556 (N.D. Cal. 1988) (courts should “discount

6

inconvenience to [a] party’s witnesses when they are employees who can be compelled to testify”);

7

Hartfield v. Offshore Oil Servs., Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69469 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 2006) (“The

8

Court reiterates that the convenience of key witnesses who are employees of the defendant requesting

9

transfer is ‘entitled to less weight because that party will be able to compel their testimony at trial.’”

10

(quoting Continental Airlines, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc., 805 F. Supp. 1392, 1397 (S.D. Tex.

11

1992))); see also Jonathan Brown, Inc. v. Venetian Casino Resort, LLC, 2007 WL 4532214, at *6

12

(N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2007); Transperfect Global, Inc. v. Motionpoint Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

13

99947, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2010) (citation omitted) (“The Court . . . discounts inconvenience to

14

the parties’ employees, whom the parties can compel to testify.”); Getz, 547 F. Supp. 2d at 1084

15

(same); Dilmore, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43244, at *26 (citation omitted) (“[T]he convenience of the

16

witnesses employed by Defendant is not to be weighted in Defendant’s favor.”).

17

Moreover, while it is unclear whether the testimony of many fact-based Ferrero witnesses will

18

be necessary at trial, Plaintiffs’ testimony is necessary to establish the foundation for their claims. But

19

“[t]ransfer is not appropriate if it simply shifts the inconvenience from one party to another.” Shultz,

20

2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24692, at *17-18 (citing Decker, 805 F.2d at 843).

21

To the extent litigating in this forum is inconvenient to Ferrero’s employees, however,

22

Plaintiffs’ counsel will mitigate any inconvenience by traveling to New Jersey to depose them if their

23

testimony is necessary and, in fact, have already done so. (Fitzgerald Dec. ¶ 19.) See DPIX, LLC v.

24

Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38130, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2011) (denying

25

transfer where plaintiff agreed to travel to location of fact witnesses residing outside district).

26
27
28

b.

Convenience of Non-Party Witnesses and Availability of Compulsory Process
to Compel Them if Unwilling to Testify

Convenience of non-party witnesses is a more important factor than the convenience of the
17
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

parties. Saleh., 361 F. Supp. 2d at 1160; see also Transperfect Global, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99947,

2

at *8 (“The convenience of witnesses includes ‘a separate but related concern, the availability of

3

compulsory process to bring unwilling witnesses live before the jury.’” (quoting Brackett v. Hilton

4

Hotels Corp., 619 F. Supp. 2d 810, 820 (N.D. Cal. 2008))).

5

Ferrero has not shown the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of

6

unwilling non-party witnesses favors transfer to New Jersey, because Ferrero has failed to identify

7

even a single witness, much less explained why there is a concern that specific witness’ testimony

8

may need to be compelled. See, e.g., NBA Props, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3799, at *25 (citations

9

omitted) (factor weighed against transfer where “defendant fails to provide any affidavits from its

10

witnesses stating that the witnesses will not voluntarily appear absent transfer”); Student Advantage,

11

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13138, at *23 (“Neither party identifies any witnesses that it believes will

12

need to be compelled to testify in this action. Accordingly, the Court can make no judgment as to

13

whether process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses is more readily available here or in

14

Arizona.”). In addition, as with Ferrero’s employees, Plaintiffs’ counsel will travel to the location of

15

third-party witnesses for deposition, and will minimize inconvenience to them by limiting the third-

16

party witnesses it calls at trial to only those witnesses that are crucial to Plaintiffs’ case. (Fitzgerald

17

Dec. ¶ 19.)

18

Moreover, as Plaintiffs previously argued, the existence of fact-based witnesses in a California

19

false advertising action is of relatively little importance, except with respect to punitive damages

20

(since those witnesses may shed a light on Ferrero’s intentions or knowledge, which is not an element

21

of Plaintiffs’ UCL, FAL, and CLRA injunctive relief, restitution and damages claims). Expert

22

witnesses are really crucial here, and their convenience is not a factor in the transfer analysis. See,

23

e.g., Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 472 F. Supp. 2d 1183, 1195 (S.D. Cal. 2007)

24

(“[T]he convenience of expert witnesses carries little or no weight.”) If the Court disregards the

25

convenience of fact-based witnesses as Plaintiffs urge, this factor presents no basis for disturbing

26

Plaintiffs’ choice of forum, and so it weighs against transfer.

27

To the extent the Court does wish to consider possible third-party witnesses, however—in

28

contrast to Ferrero’s conclusory assertions that “key” third-party witnesses are within the District of
18
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

New Jersey’s subpoena power (Mot. at 9-10)—Plaintiffs offer a detailed table showing all potential

2

third-party witness of whom they are currently aware, their potential testimony and its relevance, and

3

the source or basis for that knowledge. (Fitzgerald Dec. ¶ 20 & Ex. J.)

4

Some caveats: Most of this comes from the deposition of Bernard Kreilmann, who Ferrero

5

designated on venue issues pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6). Ferrero has not yet served its initial disclosures,

6

having finally agreed to schedule a Rule 26(f) conference this past Friday, April 29. Thus, Plaintiffs

7

are unsure (a) what testimony each third-party witnesses may offer, (b) of that testimony, what will be

8

necessary at trial, (c) of the testimony necessary for trial, which is most crucial, and (d) of the third-

9

party witnesses who are to provide that crucial testimony, which are unwilling to attend trial in New

10

Jersey or San Diego.

11

Plaintiffs’ list of third-party witnesses shows nine individuals and eight entities. Of the nine

12

individuals, Connie Evers is clearly the most important because her opinions form the basis for

13

Ferrero’s challenged advertising campaign, and are challenged directly in the complaint (MCC ¶¶ 82-

14

88). She lives in Beaverton, Oregon. Presumably, San Diego is more convenient to her than New

15

Jersey.

16

Of the remaining eight individuals, seven are former Ferrero U.S.A. employees, and one is an

17

employee of Ferrero International. Two live in Brantford, Ontario, Canada; one in Princeton, New

18

Jersey; one in Bogota, Columbia; one in Germany; one in Luxemburg; and the location of the

19

remaining two is unknown. Thus, the District of New Jersey Court would have subpoena power over

20

one individual, and this District none. Of the eight entities, three have locations in California within

21

this Court’s subpoena power, and another two have locations in Los Angeles. Three are within New

22

Jersey’s subpoena power. In sum, there is almost no difference between the proposed forums with

23

respect to the number of currently-identifiable potential third-party witnesses over whom subpoena

24

power could be exercised if necessary. But even if there were, Ferrero fails to show that any third-

25

party witnesses would be unwilling to testify in San Diego, or that the testimony of such unwilling

26

third-party witnesses is necessary for trial. Because this factor is neutral, it provides no basis on which

27

to disturb Plaintiffs’ choice of forum.

28
19
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

c.

Ease of Access to Sources of Proof

2

Ferrero does not discuss this factor, which is neutral and therefore does not justify disturbing

3

Plaintiffs’ choice of forum. In the age of electronic discovery, modern decisions frequently find this

4

factor is neutral. See, e.g., Ctr. for Food Safety, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31688, at *20; DPIX, 2011

5

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38130, at *9 (citing Lubchenco, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119794, at *9 (“The

6

documentary evidence is easily transported to any venue, in this era of electronic communication.”));

7

Metz v. U.S. Life Ins. Co., 674 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (“[E]ase of access to documents

8

does not weigh heavily in the transfer analysis, given that advances in technology have made it easy

9

for documents to be transferred to different locations.”). Consistent with the rationale underlying those

10

decisions, Ferrero has produced over 1,200 of pages of discovery, some in electronic and some in

11

hard-copy format, in a short time, without difficulty.

12

C.

The Public Factors Weigh Against Transfer

13

1.

14

“In determining whether a case should be transferred based on the interests of justice, the

15

Court can consider whether transfer will avoid duplicative litigation, affect judicial economy, and

16

limit waste of time and money.” Bibo, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78388, at *9 (citing Van Dusen v.

17

Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964)). “Among factors to be considered are the speed cases proceed to

18

trial and the public interest in having a case resolved in a particular forum.” IP Innovation, L.L.C. v.

19

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11892, at *9 (N.D. Ill. June 13, 2005) (citation

20

omitted).

Interest of Justice: Efficiency and Related Pending Litigation

21

Ferrero’s argument that the pending Glover action warrants transfer in the interest of justice is

22

limited to a single conclusory sentence, which is not even accurate (there is only one action pending in

23

the District of New Jersey) (Mot. at 6:21-22 (“Here, the ‘interest of justice’ weighs in favor of transfer

24

given the pendency of substantially similar actions in the transferee forum.”).)

25

Glover is, of course, similar to this action because it is a “copycat” of this action brought by a

26

San Diego class action law firm seeking to take advantage of Plaintiffs’ choice of forum and their

27

counsels’ considerable effort investigating and filing this important pro-consumer case. While

28

Ferrero’s implicit argument is correct, that consolidation of the two pending actions would promote
20
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

judicial efficiency, Ferrero “fails to note the [New Jersey] action could also be consolidated with this

2

case.”17 Applied Elastomerics, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75339, at *18.

3

“[W]hen two identical actions are filed in courts of concurrent jurisdiction, the court which

4

first acquired jurisdiction should try the lawsuit . . . .” Pacesetter Sys, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d

5

93, 95 (9th Cir. 1982). Similarly, “the court in the second-filed action would [normally] defer to the

6

court in the first-filed action to decide the appropriate forum.” Ctr. for Food Safety, 2011 U.S. Dist.

7

LEXIS 31688, at *15 (citing Pacesetter, 678 F.2d at 96).18

8

“The Ninth Circuit instructs that the first-to-file rule promotes efficiency and ‘should not be

9

disregarded lightly.’” Applied Elastomerics, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75339, at *18. Moreover,

10

“[w]here two actions involving overlapping issues and parties are pending in two federal courts, there

11

is a strong presumption across the federal circuits that favors the forum of the first-filed suit under the

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

17

Although there are only two federal actions pending against Ferrero and it filed this transfer motion
on March 24, on April 12, Glover filed an MDL motion seeking the exact relief this Court is set to
rule on. Plaintiffs have filed a motion to intervene in Glover, in order to move for its dismissal under
the first-to-file rule, which allows for dismissal or stay of substantially duplicative later-filed actions.
Plaintiffs will also vigorously oppose MDL transfer to New Jersey—it will only disrupt the orderly
progress of this action and increase Plaintiffs’ expense and inconvenience tremendously—and will
likely succeed. See, e.g., In re Toyota Motor Corp. Prius Hid Headlamp Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No.
2198, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128416, at *1-2 (J.P.M.L. Nov. 30, 2010) (“Given that there are only
three actions pending in two districts, and the coordinated Central District of California actions are at
a more advanced stage of proceedings, movants have failed to convince us that there are sufficiently
complex or numerous questions of fact shared among these actions to justify Section 1407 transfer . . .
.”). Moreover, Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss Glover may moot the MDL motion. Thus, this Court
should, respectfully, not refrain from ruling on this motion. See J.P.M.L. R. 1.5 (
The pendency of a motion, order to show cause, conditional transfer order or conditional
remand order before the Panel concerning transfer or remand of an action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1407 does not affect or suspend orders and pretrial proceedings in the district
court in which the action is pending and does not in any way limit the pretrial jurisdiction
of that court.)

21
22
23
24
25
26

“In other words, a district judge should not automatically stay discovery, postpone rulings on pending
motions, or generally suspend further rulings upon a parties’ motion to the MDL Panel for transfer
and consolidation.” Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (citing
Manual For Complex Litigation, Third, at 252 (1995)).
18

27
28

In recognition of this principle, the Glover court recently entered a consent order for an extension of
Ferrero’s time to answer the Glover complaint, since “[t]here are now pending two motions to transfer
to this Court the two additional complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California . . . .” (Glover Dkt. No. 16 at 1 ¶ 4.)
21
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

first-filed rule.” Id. (quoting Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132, 1135 (11th Cir. 2005); see

2

also Kempthorne, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84978, at *12 (“[T]he preferred venue in the case of parallel

3

litigation is the district in which the first lawsuit was filed.” (citing Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods,

4

Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 623 (9th Cir. 1991). Thus where, as here, there is another, late-filed copycat action

5

pending in another district and a party seeks transfer away from the first-filed forum based on that

6

action, “this factor weighs against transfer.” Applied Elastomerics, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75339, at

7

*18 (emphasis added).

8

2.

9

Ferrero does not address this factor, which weighs against transfer. Plaintiffs’ causes of action

10

arise entirely under California law. “This factor strongly favors retention of the action in this district.

11

Where, as here, there are state law claims, the ‘forum’s familiarity with governing law’ supports

12

retention of the action.” NBA Props, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3799, at *26 (citations omitted). And

13

while “other federal courts are fully capable of applying California law,” Shultz, 2011 U.S. Dist.

14

LEXIS 24692, at *11 (citation omitted), “[t]his Court is likely more familiar than the [District of New

15

Jersey] with the California laws underlying” Plaintiffs’ claims, id. Thus this factor weighs against

16

transfer. See id.; see also Getz, 547 F. Supp. 2d at 1085 (“[T]he Court finds that this factor weighs

17

against transfer. A court in the Northern District of California is more familiar with California law

18

than a court in the District of Arizona.”); accord Ironworkers Local Union No. 68 & Participating

19

Employers Health & Welfare Fund, et al. v. Amgen, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8740, at *21 (C.D.

20

Cal. Jan. 22, 2008) (“This Court is more familiar with California’s choice-of-law rules than a New

21

Jersey court. Therefore, this factor weighs against transfer.”19).

The State Most Familiar with Governing Law

22

3.

23

Ferrero assumes that because it is headquartered in New Jersey, this controversy is “localized”

24

there. (See Mot. at 7.) Ferrero is wrong, as federal courts routinely find false advertising cases

25

“localized” where a substantial portion of consumers were exposed to the challenged statements,

26

which is true of this District. See Van Slyke v. Capital One Bank, 503 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1365 (N.D.

California’s Public Policy

27
19

28

Compare Mot. at 8:2-3 (“[W]hether this case is litigated in New Jersey or California, the courts will
need to decide choice of law issues.”)
22
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

Cal. 2007) (denying transfer where estimated 20% of potential class members resided in California,

2

which has an interest in “preventing fraudulent practices which may have an effect both in California

3

and throughout the country” supported California’s local interest in controversy); Ellis v. Costco

4

Wholesale Corp., 372 F. Supp. 2d 530 (N.D. Cal 2005) (denying venue transfer motion where

5

Northern District of California was “home to a proportionately large segment of the putative class”);

6

Brody v. Am. Med. Ass’n, 337 F. Supp. 611, 613 (S.D.N.Y. 1971) (“Where a large percentage of class

7

members comes from or near New York, transfer to another district will be denied.”); accord

8

Berenson v. Nat’l Fin. Servs., LLC, 319 F. Supp. 2d 1, 4 (D.D.C. 2004) (transferring class action to

9

District of Massachusetts where “Massachusetts has the greatest interest in deciding the controversy”

10

because “this is a class action lawsuit, with claims arising in Massachusetts and the largest amount of

11

potential plaintiffs residing there”); King v. Johnson Wax Assocs., Inc., 565 F. Supp. 711, 719-20 (D.

12

Md. 1983) (transferring class action to the Central District of California upon finding that “should a

13

class eventually be certified, the interests of the class would seem better served by a trial in Los

14

Angeles than by one in Baltimore, as many more class members would likely reside in close

15

proximity to the courthouse”).

16

In reality, both New Jersey and this District have an interest in the matter, regardless of the

17

exact consumer distribution. The District of New Jersey has an interest because it is the site of

18

Ferrero’s headquarters, while the Southern District of California has an interest in protecting the rights

19

of the putative class and enforcing California law. See Unique, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137857, at

20

*24-25 (“This District certainly has a local interest in protecting consumers . . . located in the District

21

who have been deceived by the Defendant’s . . . violations. Further, jurors in this case, residents of

22

this District, will be genuinely interested in learning about Defendant’s activities and adequately

23

protecting unsuspecting consumers located in the District.”) This factor is therefore neutral. See

24

Shultz, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24692, at *23; see also Meijer, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 544 F. Supp. 2d

25

995, 1009 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (

26
27
28

It is true that the only apparent connection between the case and California is that
California is home to a large number of . . . individuals who may be consumers . . . .
However, this case has no greater connection to Illinois, except that Illinois is the site of
[Defendant’s] headquarters. Illinois this has no particular interest in this case other than
the generalized interest in ensuring that its citizens receive fair adjudications.).
23
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

REDACTED VERSION – FULL VERSION FILED UNDER SEAL

1

Accord Ironworkers Local, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8740, at *21-22 (finding stronger interest in

2

resolving controversy at location of injury than location of defendant’s headquarters).

3

4.

4

Ferrero does not address this factor, which weighs against transfer. The most recent Federal

5

Court Management Statistics maintained by the Federal Judiciary20 show, for the 12-month period

6

ending September 30, 2010, that the District of New Jersey had 414 civil filings per judgeship, while

7

the Southern District of California had 241 filings per judgeship, a difference of almost 60%. In

8

addition, the District of New Jersey’s time to trial for civil cases is currently 40.6 months, whereas

9

this forum’s time to trial is 31.6 months. Thus, this factor weighs against transfer. See Vice v.

10

Woodline USA, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8014, at *16 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) (citation omitted)

11

(denying motion to transfer where “[i]n this judicial district, the median time interval for cases

12

disposed of at trial is approximately twenty-four months; in the Middle District of Tennessee, it is

13

approximately twenty-eight months. Thus, this factor does not weight in favor of Defendant.”);

14

accord Ctr. for Food Safety, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31688, at *21-22 (where time to trial was 21.5

15

months in Northern District of California and 40.1 months in District of Columbia, concluding this

16

was a “significant difference” and “the Northern District of California is less congested”); IP

17

Innovation, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at *10 (10.5 month difference in time to trial weighed against

18

transfer).

The Relative Court Congestion and Time to Trial of Each Forum

19

CONCLUSION

20
21

Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court deny Ferrero’s Motion for Transfer of Venue.
Dated: May 2, 2011

22

By: /s/ Jack Fitzgerald
Jack Fitzgerald
Gregory S. Weston
THE WESTON FIRM

23
24
25

Ronald A. Marron
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC

26

INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL

27
20

28

http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/FederalCourtManagementStatistics.aspx (data sheets for District
of New Jersey and Southern District of California are attached to the Fitzgerald Dec. as Exhibit K).
24
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FERRERO’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE