Celgard, LLC v. LG Chem, Ltd. et al

Filing 262

ORDER granting 230 Motion to Change Venue, and this matter is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 2/18/2015. (eef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-043-MOC-DCK
CELGARD, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
LG CHEM AMERICA, INC., and
LG CHEM, LTD.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “LG Chem’s Alternative Motion To
Transfer Venue To The Eastern District Of Michigan In Whole Or In Part” (Document No. 230).
This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b), and is ripe for disposition. Having carefully considered the motion, the record, and
applicable authority, the undersigned will grant the motion to transfer venue.
BACKGROUND
Celgard, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Celgard”) initiated this action with the filing of a
“Complaint For Patent Infringement” (Document No. 1) on January 30, 2014. The original
Complaint asserts claims against LG Chem, Ltd. (“LG Chem”) and LG Chem America, Inc.
(“LGCAI’) (together “Defendants”) for: (1) direct infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,586;
and (2) induced infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,586. (Document No. 1, pp.10-12).
The underlying U.S. Patent No. 6,432,586 (the “’586 patent”), as previously discussed by
this Court,

relates to “separators” used in the construction of high energy
rechargeable lithium-ion batteries. Compl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 1; ‘586
Patent Abstract 1, ECF No. 1-A. These separators are designed to
address “dendrite growth” in lithium batteries, a common problem
associated with the high energy anodes used in such high energy
batteries. Abstract 1:20-22. Dendrite growth penetrates the
separator, creating direct contact between the anode and cathode
within each cell of the battery, thereby causing “electronic”
shorting of the battery. Abstract 1:22-31. A minimal amount of
shorting may only reduce the efficiency of the battery; however,
electronic shorting can also cause a phenomenon known as
“thermal runaway” of the battery, a serious safety problem for
rechargeable lithium batteries. Id. at 1:33-35. According to the
Patent Abstract, the dendrite growth limits the commercial
application of lithium-ion batteries. Id. at 1:36-39.
The instant invention contemplates a separator designed to
address these problems. Id. at 1:45-51. A ceramic composite layer
is designed to block dendrite growth and prevent direct contact
between the anode and cathode, and a polymeric micro-porous
layer is designed to address “thermal runaway” in the event of
contact between the anode and cathode. Id. at 2:52-60. A battery
with such a separator is less likely to fail, catch fire, or experience
a short, and is more likely to last longer. Pl. Mem. in Supp. Prel.
Inj. 4, ECF No. 16. Celgard filed a patent application for the
invention on April 10, 2000, and the Patent Office issued the
patent on April 13, 2002.
(Document No. 128, pp.1-2).
The original Complaint generally alleges that LG Chem obtains uncoated polymeric base
films from third parties and makes its own uncoated polymeric base films to which it applies a
ceramic coating layer to create battery separators that fall within the scope of the ‘586 Patent.
(Document No. 1, ¶¶ 10-12). The separators are then sold by LG Chem and/or LGCAI to third
parties, or used in Defendants’ own production of lithium-ion batteries, all allegedly in violation
of the ‘586 Patent. (Document No. 1, ¶ 13). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have knowingly
infringed the ‘586 Patent and “know that their batteries containing the infringing separators are
used by Defendants’ customers to make notebook or laptop PCs, battery packs, tablets, electric

2

vehicles, and/or other products sold in the United States and North Carolina.” (Document No. 1,
¶ 19).
On March 5, 2014, Plaintiff’s “Motion For Preliminary Injunction” (Document No. 15)
was filed. Then on March 19, 2014, “The LG Chem Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Complaint For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction” (Document No. 30) was filed. “Plaintiff Celgard,
LLC’s Alternative Motion For Jurisdictional Discovery” (Document No. 58) was filed on April
7, 2014. “The LG Chem Defendants’ Alternative Motion To Transfer Venue To The Eastern
District Of Michigan” (Document No. 71) was filed on April 23, 2014.
On May 14, 2014, the Honorable Max O. Cogburn, Jr. held a Motion Hearing on the
aforementioned motions. During the hearing the Court primarily considered arguments on the
issues of preliminary injunction and personal jurisdiction. See (Document No. 111). Judge
Cogburn issued an “Order” (Document No. 128) on July 18, 2014, granting Plaintiff’s “Motion
For Preliminary Injunction” (Document No. 15) and “Plaintiff Celgard, LLC’s Alternative
Motion For Jurisdictional Discovery” (Document No. 58), and directing that “The LG Chem
Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction”
(Document No. 30) and “The LG Chem Defendants’ Alternative Motion To Transfer Venue To
The Eastern District Of Michigan” (Document No. 71) be referred to the undersigned Magistrate
Judge “for consideration after jurisdictional discovery.” (Document No. 128).
The undersigned issued an “Order” (Document No. 139) on July 21, 2014, setting limits
and deadlines for jurisdictional discovery. On August 26, 2014, the undersigned issued an
“Order And Memorandum And Recommendation” (Document No. 204) allowing Plaintiff to file
an Amended Complaint incorporating the results of jurisdictional discovery, and recommending
that the pending motions to dismiss and transfer (Document Nos. 30 and 71) be denied as moot.

3

Plaintiff’s “First Amended Complaint” (Document No. 217) was filed on September 5,
2014.

The Amended Complaint re-asserts claims for direct infringement and induced

infringement of the ‘586 Patent by both Defendants, and adds claims against LG Chem for:
unfair and deceptive trade practices; breach of contract; breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing; and, in the alternative, unjust enrichment. (Document No. 217, pp.25-35).
The new claims against LG Chem relate to Plaintiff’s relationship with LG Chem as a
supplier of “separator base film for all lithium-ion batteries manufactured by LG Chem for the
electric vehicle industry.” (Document No. 217, pp.1-2). Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants
walked away from their prior commitments and chose to purchase, coat and sell infringing
ceramic coated separator with base film from other suppliers, despite their knowledge that these
actions infringed on Celgard’s exclusive patent rights.” (Document No. 217, p.2). Plaintiff’s
additional counts specifically contend that LG Chem is liable for its “repeated false promises to
use Celgard as its exclusive and/or primary long-term supplier of base film for the electric
vehicle industry.” (Document No. 217, p.29).
“The LG Chem Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Counts III, IV, V, VI, Celgard’s First
Amended Complaint…” (Document No. 222); “LG Chem’s Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction” (Document No. 226); and “LG Chem’s
Alternative Motion To Transfer Venue To The Eastern District Of Michigan In Whole Or In
Part” (Document No. 230) were filed on September 29, 2014. The pending motions have been
fully briefed and are now ripe for review and disposition.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The applicable statute here is 28 U.S.C. § 1404, which provides that:
For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of
justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other
4

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). In addition, previous decisions by this Court are instructive.
Even if venue in a jurisdiction is proper, a court may “for the
convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice,”
transfer the action to another district where venue is proper. 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a) (2006). This court has noted that § 1404(a) is
intended to place discretion in the district court to adjudicate
motions for transfer on an “individualized, case-by-case basis” of
convenience and fairness to the parties. AC Controls Co. v.
Pomeroy Computer Res., Inc., 284 F.Supp.2d 357, 360 (W.D.N.C.
2003) (quoting Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29,
108 S.Ct. 2239, 2243 (1988)).
McLeod Addictive Disease Center, Inc. v. Wildata Systems Group, Inc., 3:08-CV-27-GCM 2008
WL 2397614, at *1 (W.D.N.C. June 10, 2008). “The Court emphasizes that the applicable law
contemplates that a court’s decision to transfer or not transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is
largely discretionary.” 3A Composites USA, Inc. v. United Industries, Inc., 5:13cv083-RLV,
2014 WL 1471075, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 15, 2014).
When considering a motion to transfer, courts should consider,
among other things, eleven factors: 1) the plaintiff’s choice of
forum, 2) the residence of the parties, 3) access to evidence, 4) the
availability of compulsory process for witnesses and the costs of
transporting and obtaining those witnesses, 5) the possibility of a
view by the jury, 6) the enforceability of a judgment, 7) the relative
advantages and obstacles to a fair trial, 8) practical issues affecting
trial expediency and efficiency, 9) the relative court congestion
between the districts, 10) the interest of resolving localized
controversies at home and the appropriateness of having the trial of
a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the state law that
must govern the action, and 11) the avoidance of conflict of laws.
Id. at 96. The factors are accorded different weights based on the
court’s discretion. Id.
Nutrition & Fitness, Inc. v. Blue Stuff, Inc., 264 F.Supp.2d 357, 362 (W.D.N.C. 2003) (citing
Jim Crockett Promotions, Inc. v. Action Media Group, Inc., 751 F.Supp. 93, 95 (W.D.N.C.

5

1990)); see also, Cohen v. ZL Technologies, Inc., 3:14cv377-FDW-DSC, 2015 WL 93732, at
*1-2 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 7, 2015).
DISCUSSION
“While a court typically decides the question of personal jurisdiction over a defendant
before considering venue, the Supreme Court has held that ‘when there is a sound prudential
justification for doing so, ... a court may reverse the normal order of considering personal
jurisdiction and venue.’” BSN Medical, Inc. v. American Medical Products, LLC, 3:11cv092GCM-DSC, 2012 WL 171269, at *2 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 20, 2012) (citing Leroy v. Great W. United
Corp., 443 U.S. 173, 180 (1979)). “A court need not have personal jurisdiction over a defendant
to transfer a case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) or 1406(a).” Id. In this case, the Court finds
good cause to allow Defendants’ motion to transfer to the Eastern District of Michigan and will,
therefore, decline to make any recommendation as to pending dispositive motions. See BSN
Medical, 2012 WL 171269, at *1, n.1.
Plaintiff Celgard is a company organized under the laws of Delaware, with its
headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.

(Document No. 217, p.2).

Plaintiff’s parent

company, Polypore International, Inc., is also headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
(Document No. 217, pp.1-2).
Celgard is well-known internationally as a leader in the
lithium-battery material industry.
Celgard makes uncoated
polymeric base film (“base film”) that it sells to lithium-ion battery
manufacturers. This base film essentially is an uncoated separator;
some manufacturers simply use this base film as the separator in a
lithium-ion battery, while other manufacturers (such as LG Chem)
coat the base film to create a “coated separator” for use in their
lithium-ion batteries.
(Document No. 217, p.3).

6

Defendant LG Chem is organized under the laws of the Republic of Korea, with is
principal place of business in Seoul, Korea. (Document No. 217, p.3). Defendant LGCAI is a
subsidiary of LG Chem and organized under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of
business in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Id.

“LG Chem is one of the world’s largest

manufacturers of lithium batteries” and manufactures lithium-ion batteries that are used in
consumer electronics products and electric vehicles. Id.
Importantly, Defendants both concede that they are subject to personal jurisdiction in the
Eastern District of Michigan. (Document No. 231, p.5). Defendants note the following pertinent
facts: (1) LG Chem sells the accused lithium-ion batteries to electric vehicle manufacturers
residing in Eastern Michigan, including General Motors, Ford Motor Company, and Chrysler;
(2) all of LG Chem’s subsidiaries, including LGCAI, have outposts in Michigan; (3) LGCAI
maintains an office in Troy, Michigan, in the Eastern District; and (4) LG Chem employees visit
the offices of their U.S. subsidiaries, and are familiar with their facilities in Troy, Michigan. Id.
So far, this Court has reviewed multiple briefs regarding jurisdiction in this matter, and
considered oral arguments on the same.

Moreover, the parties were allowed to conduct

jurisdictional discovery prior to the filing of an Amended Complaint and renewed motions. Still,
the question of personal jurisdiction presents a close call upon which reasonable minds could
differ. Although this case presents a closer call, this Court recently rejected several of the same
arguments by the same Plaintiff in Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co., Ltd., 3:13cv254-MOCDSC, 2014 WL 5430993 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 29, 2014) (“The fact that some of defendant’s
batteries may end up as a component in another manufacturer’s device is simply not enough”).
Unlike Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co., Ltd., - which declined to address an alternative
motion to transfer venue because the Court determined that the defendant was subject to suit in

7

multiple jurisdictions – it appears that the Eastern District of Michigan is the only venue where
both Defendants would clearly be subject to personal jurisdiction.

Celgard, LLC v. SK

Innovation Co., Ltd., 2014 WL 5430993, at *2.
The undersigned is doubtful that this Court has personal jurisdiction over both
Defendants with regard to all the claims asserted against them; however, as noted above,
Defendants admit to jurisdiction in Michigan. See BSN Medical, 2012 WL 171269, at *4
(transfer appropriate even if venue is proper in this district).

The undersigned also finds

additional caselaw identified by Defendants to be instructive here: La Casa Real Estate & Inv.,
LLC v. KB Home of S.C., Inc., 2010 WL 2649867, at *2 (M.D.N.C. June 30, 2010) (granting
motion to transfer “in the interests of convenience, fairness and judicial economy . . . before
reaching any issues related to the Court’s jurisdiction”); Nacco Materials Handling Grp., Inc. v.
Lilly Co., 2011 WL 2119097, at *4 (E.D.N.C. May 25, 2011) (granting motion to transfer when
personal jurisdiction over defendant remained “in serious doubt”);

Waldron v. Atradius

Collections, Inc., 2010 WL 2367392, at *3 (D.Md. June 9, 2010) (“[T]he constitutional question
of personal jurisdiction is a close one upon which reasonable minds could differ. There is no
reason to inject such a question into the case unnecessarily.”); Jenkins v. Albuquerque Lonestar
Freightliner, LLC, 464 F. Supp. 2d 491, 494 (E.D.N.C. 2006) (granting motion to transfer in part
because “the absence of personal jurisdiction over the defendant” in the original forum but not
the transferee forum is an “impediment to a decision on the merits”); Tyler v. Gaines Motor
Lines, Inc., 245 F. Supp. 2d 730, 734 (D.Md. 2003) (transferring case in interest of justice
because the question of personal jurisdiction was a “close one” and “would inject into the case an
unnecessary legal issue that would render the entire litigation null and void, if, on appeal,
jurisdiction were found to be lacking”); Datasouth Computer Corp. v. Three Dimensional Tech.,

8

Inc., 719 F. Supp. 446, 452 (W.D.N.C. 1989) (“Courts have held that a change of venue may
conserve judicial resources, and serve the interests of the parties as well, if a case is transferred
from a forum where there is a difficult question of personal jurisdiction or venue to a district in
which there are not such uncertainties.”)
In reaching a determination that this matter should be transferred, the undersigned has
applied the factors identified in Jim Crockett Promotions, Inc. v. Action Media Group, Inc., 751
F.Supp. 93, 95 (W.D.N.C. 1990).
1. Plaintiff’s initial choice of forum
Although the choice of forum by the Plaintiff is ordinarily given considerable weight,
“that weight is diminished when the conduct giving rise to the complaint did not occur in the
forum.” Hames v. Morton Salt, Inc., 3:11cv570-MOC-DSC, 2012 WL 1247201, at *2
(W.D.N.C. Apr. 13, 2012) (citing Parham v. Weave Corp., 323 F.Supp.2d 670, 674 (M.D.N.C.
2004); Telepharmacy Solutions, Inc. v. Pickpoint Corp., 238 F.Supp.2d 741, 743 (E.D.Va.
2003); and Lynch v. Vanderhoef Builders, 237 F.Supp2d 615, 617 (D.Md. 2002)).
The conduct regarding the crux of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, patent infringement,
is alleged to have occurred throughout the United States. (Document No. 217, pp.4-11). The
Amended Complaint specifically notes that “LG Chem regularly conducts business throughout
the United States directly and through a number of wholly-owned subsidiaries, including
without limitation LG Chem Michigan, Inc., a Delaware corporation; LG Chem Power,
Inc., a Michigan corporation; and LG Chem America.” (Document No. 217, p.9) (emphasis
added).
Plaintiff assumes that infringing battery separators are contained in products that have
sold in North Carolina. Id. In addition, Plaintiff notes that representatives of LG Chem have

9

made visits to North Carolina to discuss the parties’ relationship regarding the sale of base film,
and that some meetings may have included discussion about Plaintiff’s patent rights and coated
battery separators. (Document No. 217, p.7).
Although Plaintiff effectively notes some contacts with North Carolina by Defendant LG
Chem related to the issues in this lawsuit, it appears that most, if not all, of the conduct giving
rise to the complaint occurred in Korea or Michigan. (Document No. 248, p.5). Defendants
contend they conduct substantial activity in Michigan, including manufacturing and sales.
(Document No. 248, p.2). The undersigned weighs this factor as neutral.
2. Residence of the parties
Plaintiff is a resident of North Carolina. (Document No. 217, pp.2-3). LG Chem’s
principal place of business is Seoul, Korea and LGACAI’s principal place of business is
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. (Document No. 217, p.3). As noted, however, all of LG Chem’s
U.S. subsidiaries, including Defendant LGCAI, have “outposts” and/or offices in the Eastern
District of Michigan, and Defendants contend they are “at home” in Michigan. (Document No.
231, p.7); see also, (Document No. 217, p.9). The undersigned weighs this factor slightly in
favor of transfer.
3. Access to evidence
Plaintiff asserts that much of the proof in this case is located in North Carolina, including
“relevant documents, contracts, and emails.” (Document No. 243, p.5).
Defendants contend that “the bulk of relevant evidence is likely to come from LG Chem
and its U.S. subsidiaries involved in the lithium-battery business and located in Michigan.”
(Document No. 248, p.2) (citing In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“In
patent infringement cases, the bulk of the relevant evidence usually comes from the accused

10

infringer.”); In re Nintendo, 589 F.3d 1194, 1198 (Fed. Cir. 2009); and Nature’s Energy Banc,
Inc. v. Unified Holding Int’l, 2011 WL 3841638 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 30, 2011) (where case
remained in the Eastern District of Michigan when the “most important [of the 11] factors,”
witness convenience, location of the evidence, and locus of the operative facts, favored venue in
Michigan.)).
The undersigned finds that this factor favors transfer.
4. Availability of compulsory process for witnesses and the costs of transporting and
obtaining those witnesses
Plaintiff specifically asserts that two (2) witnesses who are “knowledgeable about LG
Chem and Celgard’s relationship are located in North Carolina,” the patent-in-suit’s inventor
Zhengming Zhang, who still works as Celgard’s CTO, and its electric vehicle marketing director
William Paulus. (Document No. 243, pp.5-6). Plaintiff argues that its costs will increase if it has
to bring witnesses to trial in Michigan, but that Defendants’ costs travelling from Korea or New
Jersey or California to North Carolina are not significantly different than traveling to Michigan.
Id.
Although Defendants fail to cite any specific witnesses, they contend that their “potential
witnesses are likely numerous” and that none are in North Carolina. (Document No. 248, p.3).
Defendants suggests that the combination of the presence of all its U.S. subsidiaries and many of
its customers, including numerous fact witnesses, in Michigan favors that forum. (Document
No. 248, p.2) (citing Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., 3:10-CV-101-RJC-DCK, 2010
WL 5014512 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 3, 2010) (citing convenience of non-party witnesses as the “more
important factor” and accordingly is afforded “greater weight”). See also, Union First Market
Bank v. Bly, 3:13cv316-GCM, 2013 WL 4455619, at *3 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 16, 2013) (quoting
Hames, 2012 WL 1247201, at *3 (“[o]ften cited as the most important factor ... is the
11

convenience of witnesses, most particularly, non-party witnesses, who are important to the
resolution of the case”).
Despite allowing jurisdictional discovery in this matter, the facts regarding this factor
appear less developed by either side than the Court might have hoped.

Nevertheless, the

undersigned is persuaded that Plaintiff’s primary witnesses are employees who will require
relatively minimal cost and inconvenience to bring to a trial in Michigan.

Defendants’

circumstances indicate that Michigan is more convenient, but the undersigned agrees with
Plaintiff that travel from Korea or New Jersey to North Carolina and Michigan are roughly
equivalent.

More importantly, to the extent there are non-party witnesses in this matter,

particularly customers and/or manufacturers of products including the allegedly infringing
separators, and/or witnesses knowledgeable of Defendants’ use of base film, the undersigned is
persuaded they are more likely to be in Michigan or made available in the Eastern District of
Michigan.
The undersigned concludes that this key factor favors transfer.
5. Possibility of a view by the jury
The undersigned is not persuaded that a view by the jury will be necessary, and thus
concludes that this factor is neutral.
6. Enforceability of a judgment
The undersigned cannot foresee, and the parties have not identified, any concerns about
the enforcement of a judgment by a U.S. District Court in North Carolina or Michigan. This
factor is viewed as neutral.
7. Relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial

12

Other than the previously mentioned issue regarding attendance of witnesses who are in
Michigan, the undersigned does not foresee any clear advantages or obstacles to a fair trial. It
appears reasonably likely that there will be witnesses in Michigan who cannot be compelled to
appear in North Carolina; but few, if any, witnesses will not appear, if needed, in Michigan. As
such, the undersigned finds this factor slightly favors transfer.
8. Practical issues affecting trial expediency and efficiency
“Trials are never easy, expeditious, or inexpensive.” Century Furniture, LLC v. C & C
Imports, Inc., 1:07cv179-DLH, 2007 WL 2712955, at * 5 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 14, 2007). Whatever
this Court decides, there will be some air travel and inconvenience. Balancing all the evidence to
date, the undersigned is persuaded this factor slightly favors transfer.
9. Relative court congestion between the districts
The parties have failed to provide any evidence regarding this factor. The undersigned
notes that recent statistics suggest that the median interval for disposition of civil cases is about
one (1) month faster in the Eastern District of Michigan than in the Western District of North
Carolina; but that North Carolina has approximately 200 civil filings per district judge, while
Michigan

has

approximately

207

civil

filings

per

district

judge.

http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/StatisticalTablesForTheFederalJudiciary/june-2014.aspx

See
On

balance, the undersigned is persuaded that the caseload for these courts is comparable and that
this factor is neutral.
10. The interest of resolving localized controversies at home and the appropriateness of
having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the state law that must
govern the action
This case involves allegations that implicate nationwide, if not international, wrongdoing.
Both sides consist of sophisticated parties. Plaintiff is at home in North Carolina, and has added

13

state law claims with the Amended Complaint; however, any district court will be able to apply
North Carolina law to the extent necessary. This factor is neutral.
11. Avoidance of conflict of laws
Plaintiff contends this “factor weighs strongly against transfer.” (Document No. 243,
pp.7-8). Plaintiff seems to suggest that a North Carolina court is better able to “determine which
law it should apply to procedural or contract interpretation questions.” The undersigned is not
persuaded that a Michigan court, especially one assisted by the capable advocacy of Plaintiff’s
counsel, will have any more trouble than this Court determining which law to apply. The
undersigned also finds this factor neutral.
Based on the foregoing, and in accordance with the teachings of Jim Crockett
Promotions, Inc. v. Action Media Group, Inc., the undersigned has conducted a quantitative and
qualitative analysis of the foregoing factors, and finds that transfer is appropriate. See Century
Furniture, LLC, 2007 2712955, at * 6.
CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “LG Chem’s Alternative Motion To Transfer
Venue To The Eastern District Of Michigan In Whole Or In Part” (Document No. 230) is
GRANTED, and this matter is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan.
SO ORDERED.

Signed: February 18, 2015

14