Choon's Design LLC v. Tristar Products, Inc.

Filing 18

ORDER Denying 12 Motion to Transfer Case. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHOON’S DESIGN INC.,
a Michigan corporation,
Plaintiff,

CASE NUMBERS: 14-10848
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

v.
TRISTAR PRODUCTS, INC.,
a New Jersey corporation,
Defendant.
/
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TRANSFER
DOC. # 12
Choon’s Design LLC (“Choon”) makes rubber bands used as links to form
bracelets, necklaces and other crafts. Choon calls its product the “Rainbow Loom” and
holds a patent to it. Choon alleges that several companies are infringing on its patent;
many cases are pending within this district and it anticipates filing similar actions here.
On February 24, 2014, Choon filed suit against Tristar Products Inc. (“Tristar”)
alleging patent infringement of its Rainbow Loom. Tristar makes a product that looks
and appears to be a similar craft toy.
Tristar’s Answer does not challenge this Court’s jurisdiction and venue; it did,
however, file a motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) to a federal district court
located in New Jersey where it is incorporated and has its principal place of business.
Tristar also filed a counterclaim, which among others, challenges Choon’s patent.
Tristar’s motion is DENIED.

1

Under 28 U.S.C. 1404 (a), “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the
interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or
division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all
parties have consented,” Id., at its “broad discretion.” Reese v. CNH Am. LLC, 574 F3d
315, 320 (6t Cir. 2009)(“As the permissive language of the transfer statute suggests,
district courts have "broad discretion" to determine when party "convenience" or "the
interest of justice" make a transfer appropriate.”).
While normally district courts consider whether venue would be proper in the
transferee court, this Court need only consider convenience and fairness: Choon
concedes that New Jersey is a proper venue. Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487
U.S. 22, 29 (U.S. 1988)(“Section 1404(a) is intended to place discretion in the district
court to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an "individualized, case-by-case
consideration of convenience and fairness."); Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622
(1964)(analyzing whether venue existed in the transferee court).
Tristar agues that all factors weigh heavily in favor of transfer. It says that Choon
has filed one of its patent infringement actions in New Jersey, which suggests that New
Jersey is a convenient forum for Choon. It says that all of its witness -- primary and
third party -- who will testify about the development of its product are located in New
Jersey. And, New Jersey could try the case quicker because this case would only make
the second pending action filed by Choon there.
Choon argues that New Jersey is not convenient for it; Choon says that it filed
one -- out of several -- actions, against an unrelated defendant, in New Jersey because
that was the only state where jurisdiction and venue were proper with respect to that
2

particular party. Choon maintains that all fifteen of its employees are Michigan citizens,
located within this district. It says that because the validity of its patent is being
challenged it must call these witnesses. Choon also argues that it is a smaller company
with limited sales, while Tristar is a billion dollar entity. Lastly, Choon argues that the
average case takes a year longer to be resolved in New Jersey than in Michigan.
To weigh convenience and fairness, courts consider:
(1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the convenience of the witnesses; (3)
the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (4) the availability of
processes to compel attendance of unwilling witnesses; (5) the cost of
obtaining willing witnesses; (6) the practical problems associated with trying
the case most expeditiously and inexpensively; and (7) the interest of justice.
Audi AG v. D'Amato, 341 F. Supp. 2d 734, 749 ( E.D. Mich. 2004).
These factors don’t favor either party. As Judge Berg held in his order declining
to transfer one of Choon’s cases to New Jersey: “[m]erely shifting the inconvenience
from one party to another does not meet the defendant’s burden.” Choon's Design, LLC
v. Larose Indus., No. 13-13569, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156695, at *12 ( E.D. Mich. Nov.
1, 2013).
Further, as Choon argues, the pubic interest factors weigh in Choon’s favor as a
Michigan entity that employs Michigan citizens, it is best left for this locale to decide
questions impacting its citizen’s patent. B.E. Tech., LLC v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., No.
2:12-cv-02823-JPM-tmp, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97497, at *29-31 (W.D. Tenn. July 12,
2013).
Even if the Court required a tie breaker, the Court would award Choon’s selected
forum deference, which would slant in favor of case retention. Stewart v. Am. Eagle
Airlines, Inc., No. 3:10-00494, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117308, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 3,
3

2010)("balance between the plaintiff's choice of forum and defendant's desired forum is
even, the plaintiff's choice of [forum] should prevail."). Tristar purposefully availed itself
to Michigan’s jurisdiction by selling its product to citizens who reside here. Choon
operates primarily in Michigan. It was foreseeable that litigation would ensue here.
Accordingly, Tristar has not met its burden to show that convenience and
fairness warrant transfer. Its motion is DENIED.
IT IS ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: May 8, 2014
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of
record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on
May 8, 2014.
s/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk

4