Lacks Enterprises, Inc. et al v. HD Supply, Inc. et al
Filing
3
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Eastern District of Michigan; signed by District Judge Paul L. Maloney (Judge Paul L. Maloney, cmc) [Transferred from miwd on 3/10/2016.]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LACKS ENTERPRISES, INC., AND
LACKS HOME PRODUCTS, LLC
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
)
-v)
)
HD SUPPLY, INC., AND HOME DEPOT
)
U.S.A., INC.,
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
No. 1:15-cv-990
HONORABLE PAUL L. MALONEY
ORDER TRANSFERRING ACTION TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
In September 2015, Lacks Enterprises, Inc. and Lacks Home Products, LLC, filed a
complaint seeking relief from an alleged breach of a settlement agreement with HD Supply, Inc.,
and The Home Depot, Inc.1 (ECF No. 1 at PageID.5.) The original dispute culminating in a
settlement agreement was litigated in the Eastern District of Michigan. See Lacks Enterprises, Inc.
and Lacks Home Products, LLC v. HD Supply, Inc., et al., No. 2:12-cv-14472 (E.D. Mich. 2013).2
An order of dismissal with prejudice was entered—“subject to the terms of the January 1, 2013
Settlement Agreement entered into between the Parties.” (Id. at ECF No. 38.) 3
The Court, after reviewing the pleadings, questioned why this action was not brought in
the same court that previously handled the patent infringement dispute and entered an order of
dismissal citing the settlement agreement.4 The Court ordered both parties to show cause why the
1
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. was subsequently substituted in the place of The Home Depot, Inc. (See ECF No. 25.)
The complaint has since been amended to include a patent infringement claim, which was the subject of the
original action. (See ECF No. 31.)
3
The Court recognizes that the original presiding Court does not necessarily retain inherent ancillary jurisdiction.
See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994).
4
Pursuant to the Local Rules of both the Western and Eastern Districts of Michigan, if this follow-up action would
have been brought in the same district as the original action, it would almost assuredly have been reassigned to the
same judge who presided over the original suit culminating in a settlement agreement. This is particularly true with
patent infringement actions. See, e.g., W.D. Mich. LCivR 3.3.1(d), 3.3.2; E.D. Mich. LCivR 83.11(b).
2
1
case should not be transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404, in the “interests of justice” and
“judicial economy.” (See ECF No. 30.)
Both parties filed responses and noted that while venue was proper in the Western District
of Michigan, neither party opposed a transfer to the Eastern District. (ECF No. 33 at PageID.334
(“[D]efendants do not oppose a transfer to the Eastern District of Michigan . . . .”); ECF No. 34 at
PageID.346 (“Plaintiffs do not object to the transfer of this matter to the Eastern District of
Michigan.”)); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (“[A] district court may transfer any civil action to any other
district . . . to any district or division to which all parties have consented.”).
“For 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “Although it is
usually one of the parties that moves to transfer the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the court
may order transfer sua sponte provided the parties are first given the opportunity to argue their
views on the issue.” Hite v. Norwegian Caribbean Lines, 551 F. Supp. 390, 393 (E.D. Mich. 1982)
(transferring a case from the Eastern District to the Western District of Michigan after raising the
issue sua sponte); see, e.g., Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 933–34 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (en banc);
Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986).
“Transfer is appropriate under § 1404(a) where: (1) venue is proper in the transferor
district; (2) venue and jurisdiction are proper in the transferee district; and (3) the transfer will
serve the convenience of the parties and the witnesses and will promote the interest of justice.”
Amoco Oil Co. v. Mobil Oil Co., 90 F. Supp. 2d 958, 959 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (citing Coffey v. Van
Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 220–21 (7th Cir. 1986)). Generally, courts in the Sixth Circuit
weigh several factors. See, e.g., Reese v. CNH America LLC, 574 F.3d 315, 320 (6th Cir. 2009);
2
see also, e.g., Amoco Oil Co., 90 F. Supp. 2d at 959 (citing Coffey, 796 F.2d at 219) (“It is in the
sound discretion of the trial judge to determine the weight accorded to each factor.”).
“As the permissive language of the statute suggests, district courts have ‘broad discretion’
to determine when party ‘convenience’ or ‘the interests of justice’ make a transfer appropriate.
Only when the district court ‘clearly abuse[s] its discretion’ in balancing these factors will we
reverse.” Reese, 574 F.3d at 320 (emphasis added) (citing Phelps v. McClellan, 30 F.3d 658, 663
(6th Cir. 1994)).
The Federal Circuit has observed that transfers under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 may be particularly
appropriate in patent infringement actions. Indeed, “in a case such as this in which several highly
technical factual issues are presented and the other relevant factors are in equipoise, the interest of
judicial economy may favor transfer to a court that has become familiar with the issues”; and
“consideration of the interest of justice, which includes judicial economy, may be determinative
to a particular transfer motion, even if the convenience of the parties and witnesses might call for
a different result.”5 Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1565 (Fed. Cir.
1997) (emphasis added) (citing Coffey, 796 F.2d at 220–21).
Thus, the Court TRANSFERS this action to the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: March 8, 2016
/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
5
The Court recognizes that, for example, “the convenience of the parties and witnesses” may not favor one district
over the other here. To the extent those factors mattered in the original suit, Plaintiff chose to file in the Eastern
District of Michigan. The calculus does not differ here.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?