Banegas v. The Procter & Gamble Company

Filing 28

ORDER granting 17 Motion to Transfer to the Central District of California; denying 17 Motion to Stay; Closing Case. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 9/28/2016. (ahk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 0:16-cv-61617-GAYLES/Turnoff
ANGELA BANEGAS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly-situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE
COMPANY, an Ohio corporation,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Transfer or, in the
Alternative, to Stay in Favor of First-Filed Action (“Motion”) [ECF No. 17]. The Court has
considered the Motion, Plaintiff’s Response [ECF No. 23], Defendant’s Reply [ECF No. 26], the
record, and the applicable law. A hearing was held on September 28, 2016. For the reasons that
follow, the Court grants the Motion and orders the case transferred.
Defendant Procter & Gamble Company (“P&G”) has moved to have this case transferred
pursuant to the first-to-file rule. “The first-filed rule provides that when parties have instituted
competing or parallel litigation in separate courts, the court initially seized of the controversy
should hear the case.” Collegiate Licensing Co. v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa., 713 F.3d 71, 78
(11th Cir. 2013). “Where two actions involving overlapping issues and parties are pending in two
federal courts, there is a strong presumption across the federal circuits that favors the forum of
the first-filed suit under the first-filed rule.” Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132, 1135
(11th Cir. 2005). The Eleventh Circuit “require[s] that the party objecting to jurisdiction in the
1

first-filed forum carry the burden of proving ‘compelling circumstances’ to warrant an exception
to the first-filed rule.” Id. (quoting Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Haydu, 675
F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1982)).
Here, it is clear that transfer is warranted. A putative national class action lawsuit
(“Brenner lawsuit”) * involving the same issues as those asserted by Plaintiff Angela Banegas
(“Banegas”) here was filed in the Central District of California, Santa Ana Division, on June 13,
2016—twenty-four days prior to Banegas’s filing of the instant putative national class action
lawsuit on July 7, 2016. Even if the Court were the apply the date of the pre-suit demand letter in
each case, the plaintiff in the Brenner lawsuit sent her pre-suit demand on April 15, 2016, and
Banegas sent her pre-suit demand one week later on April 22, 2016. Both the Brenner lawsuit
and the instant lawsuit are brought on behalf of a nationwide class against P&G regarding the
same product—the “Natural Clean” product line to the Pampers brand. The issues to be
addressed by the court in each lawsuit are essentially identical—claims of unjust enrichment,
breach of express warranty, and state consumer protection law violations. The only difference is
the application of California versus Florida substantive law, the determination of which shall be
left to the Central District of California as the cases proceed. The nationwide classes of the
instant action and the Brenner lawsuit will be subsumed by one another if the Central District of
California ultimately grants class certification in either case.
The Court does not find any “compelling circumstances” to warrant an exception to the
first-filed rule. As stated at the hearing, Banegas does not assert that P&G acted in bad faith in its
pre-suit negotiations in an attempt to delay her filing of the instant lawsuit. Rather, the Court
finds sufficient cause to transfer the case, especially given the likelihood of unnecessary

*

Brenner v. The Procter & Gamble Company, No. 8:16-cv-1093 (C.D. Cal.).
2

duplication of litigation for the parties, the danger of inconsistent rulings, and the interests of
sound judicial administration and judicial economy for the federal court system.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
(1)

Defendant’s Motion to Transfer [ECF No. 17] is GRANTED and the case is
TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Santa Ana Division; and

(2)

This case is CLOSED for administrative purposes, and any pending motions are
DENIED as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 28th day of September,
2016.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc:

Magistrate Judge Turnoff
All Counsel of Record

3