Provvedi v. Wyeth LLC et al

Filing 6

ORDER - Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files and records herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties must, no later than July 29, 2011, 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)? and 2. Assuming that the Court decides that a transfer under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) is appropriate, to which district should this action be transferred? Signed by Judge Paul A. Magnuson on June 30, 2011. (smr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Linda Provvedi,

Civ. No. 10-4898 (PAM/FLN)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

Wyeth LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

This action is one of many product-liability actions that have recently been filed in the
District of Minnesota despite having no discernable connection to Minnesota. So far as the
face of the Complaint reveals, Plaintiff is not a citizen of Minnesota, Defendant is not a
citizen of Minnesota, Defendant is not incorporated in Minnesota, Defendant does not
maintain its principal place of business in 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.
It appears, then, that this case was filed in Minnesota only to take advantage of
Minnesota’s relatively generous statutes of limitations. See Minn. Stat. § 541.05 (providing
a six-year limitations period for negligence and fraud claims and a four-year period for
strict-liability claims); Minn. Stat. § 336.2-725 (providing a four-year limitations period for
warranty claims); see also Fleeger v. Wyeth, 771 N.W.2d 524, 525 (Minn. 2009) (in cases
properly commenced in Minnesota, Minnesota’s statute of limitations applies to personalinjury claims arising before August 1, 2004).

Transferring this case would appear likely to promote the interests of justice and the
convenience of the parties. Moreover, a transfer would appear unlikely to prejudice any
party. This case would remain in federal court and, assuming that this case was properly
filed in Minnesota, the same choice-of-law rules would apply after transfer. See Ferens v.
John Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516, 523 (1990) (a § 1404(a) transfer does not change the law
applicable in a diversity case). The main effect of a transfer would likely be to put the parties
in a forum that has some connection to the underlying dispute and is more convenient for the
parties. For all of these reasons, the Court orders the parties to brief the propriety of a
transfer under § 1404(a).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files and records herein, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the parties must, no later than July 29, 2011, 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.

Assuming that the Court decides that a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is
appropriate, to which district should this action be transferred?

Dated:

June 30 , 2011

s/Paul A. Magnuson
Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Judge

2