Bayhi et al v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

Filing 7

ORDER: The parties shall, no later than April 7, 2014, file briefs of no more than 6,000 words addressing the following questions: (1) Should this action be transferred to another district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)? (2) If the Court decides a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is appropriate, to which district should this action be transferred? (Please see order for complete details) (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 03/18/2014. (TLU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Mary Bayhi and Robert Burger,
Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER
Civil No. 07-4597 ADM/JSM

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation,
Defendant.

This is one of many product-liability actions that have been filed in the District of
Minnesota despite the lack of any apparent connection to Minnesota. The face of the Complaint
reveals that no party is a citizen of Minnesota, no act giving rise to this action occurred in
Minnesota, and none of the alleged injuries for which Plaintiff seeks to recover were suffered in
Minnesota. Shortly after being filed here in November 2007, the case was transferred by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the Middle District of Tennessee for consolidated
pretrial proceedings. Those proceedings have now been completed, and the case was recently
remanded to the District of Minnesota.
The only apparent reason plaintiffs filed the case in Minnesota was to avail themselves of
Minnesota’s relatively generous statutes of limitations. See Minn. Stat. § 541.05 (2012)
(providing a six-year limitation period for negligence claims and a four-year limitation period for
strict-liability claims); Minn. Stat § 336.2-725 (2012) (providing a four-year limitation period for
warranty claims); see also Fleeger v. Wyeth, 771 N.W.2d 524, 525 (Minn. 2009) (holding that
for cases properly commenced in Minnesota, Minnesota’s statute of limitations applies to
personal-injury claims arising before August 1, 2004).

Transferring this case would appear to promote the interests of justice and the
convenience of the parties. A transfer will place the parties in a forum that has some connection
to the underlying dispute and that is more convenient for them. Additionally, it does not appear
that a transfer would prejudice any party. The case would remain in federal court and, assuming
the case was properly filed in Minnesota, the same choice-of-law rules would apply after the
transfer. See Ferens v. John Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516, 523 (1990) (holding a transfer under 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a) does not change the law applicable in a diversity case). For these reasons, the
Court orders the parties to brief the propriety of a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated above, IT
IS ORDERED THAT the parties shall no later than April 7, 2014, file briefs of no more than
6,000 words addressing the following questions:
1.

Should this action be transferred to another district pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a)?

2.

If the Court decides a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is appropriate, to which
district should this action be transferred?
BY THE COURT:

s/Ann D. Montgomery
ANN D. MONTGOMERY
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 18, 2014.