BPP v. Brasseler USA, Inc. et al

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's consent motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the Northern District of Illinois [Doc. # 32 ] is granted. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 3/27/2017. (CLO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
BBP,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BRASSELER U.S.A. DENTAL, LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:17-CV-10 (CEJ)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This purported class action is before the Court on plaintiff’s consent motion to
transfer venue to the Northern District of Illinois, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227, by sending “junk faxes.” A similar class action against
defendants is presently pending in the Northern District of Illinois. James L.
Orrington, II, DDS, PC v. Brasseler USA Dental, LLC, et al., No. 1:17-CV-956-EEB.
Plaintiff seeks transfer of this action so that it may be consolidated with the
Orrington matter. Plaintiff informs the Court that defendants consent to the
requested transfer.
The change of venue statute states:
For the convenience of the 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) (emphasis added); see also 15 Charles Alan Wright et al.,
Federal Practice & Procedure § 3845 (4th ed.) (consent provision “permits transfer

even to a district that is not a proper venue and that does not have personal
jurisdiction over the defendant.”
In ruling on a consent motion to transfer, the court must consider the
statutory factors: the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of
justice. Id. (consent of the parties “merely expands the range of possible transferee
courts if a court determines that transfer is appropriate for the convenience of
parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.”). A court considering a transfer
motion is not limited to the enumerated factors but must consider “the particular
circumstances at hand” and “all relevant factors.” Terra Int’l, Inc. v. Mississippi
Chem. Corp., 119 F.3d 688, 691 (8th Cir. 1997). In this instance, transfer will
permit the consolidation of two separate purported class actions against the
defendants for the same conduct, thereby promoting judicial efficiency, reducing
litigation costs, and eliminating unnecessary duplication of efforts. The Court finds
that transfer is appropriate for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the
interest of justice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s consent motion to transfer venue
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the Northern District of Illinois [Doc. # 32] is
granted.

CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 27th day of March, 2017.

2