Opinion
Case Number: 04-20360-CIV-MORENO
May 18, 2004
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER AND ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Purdue Defendants' Motion to Transfer Proceedings to the Southern District of New York ( D.E. No. 11), filed on March 11. 2004 . Subsequently, Defendants Abbott Laboratories, Inc., and Abbott Laboratories joined in the Purdue Defendants motion to transfer on March 12. 2004 . Defendants seek transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1 404(a) to the Southern District of New York. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to transfer.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Mayte Balloveras has brought the instant action on behalf of all Florida citizens against the Defendants for the illegal sale and marketing of Oxycontin, a medication used for pain management. Plaintiffs allege that by selling Oxycontin at artificially inflated prices, Defendants have violated Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Complaint, ¶¶ 28-35. Plaintiff's claims are premised on related litigation in the Southern District of New York that has recently declared various Purdue patents unenforceable. Plaintiff is a Florida resident and purports to represent a class of Florida plaintiffs. In addition to the action brought by the Plaintiff, 40 other related suits challenging the Defendants' conduct are now pending. Of these related cases, 23 are pending before the Southern District of New York.
Purdue Pharma, L.P. v. Endo Pharm. Inc., 2004 WL 26523 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2004).
II. ANALYSIS
A district court "may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought" if the transfer would make the litigation more convenient or would otherwise serve the interests of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); In re Ricoh Corporation, 870 F.2d 570, 572(11th Cir. 1989). First, the Court must determine if the Plaintiffs could have brought this action in the Southern District of New York. See Mason v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, 146 F. Supp.2d 1355, 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2001). Second, the Court must balance the private and public factors to determine if the interests of justice favor transfer. Id. (citing Miot v. Kechigian, 830 F. Supp. 1460, 1465-66 (S.D. Fla. 1993)).
In support of its motion, Defendants contend that the Plaintiff's forum choice is not entitled to deference and that the interests of justice and the convenience of the parties and witnesses favor transfer to New York. Plaintiffs counter that their forum choice should be given deference and that the action is not duplicative of counterclaims or other lawsuits pending in New York.
Because the parties do not dispute that the instant action could have been brought in the Southern District of New York, the Court is left to determine if the convenience of the parties and interests of justice favor transfer to the Southern District of New York.
A. Choice of Forum
Traditionally, the plaintiff's choice of forum is given "considerable deference". See Ricoh at 573. However, the plaintiff' s choice of forum is given less than normal deference in the following two situations: (1) where the suit is a class action and (2) where the operative facts underlying the action occurred outside the district in which the action is brought. See Moghaddam v. Dunkin' Donuts, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14952, at *6. Here, it appears to the Court that the Plaintiff' s choice of forum is entitled to less than normal deference because the instant action is both a class action and the facts underlying the action occurred in the Southern District of New York.
B. Interests of Justice
Defendants contend that the interests of justice greatly favor transfer to New York. Defendants point out that the instant action is premised on and related to numerous other actions, the majority of which are currently before Judge Stein of the Southern District of New York. Specifically, Defendants contend that the instant action presents identical issues that have already been litigated as counterclaims before Judge Stein. In addition, Defendants urge the Court that Judge Stein's experience with the patent action make him particularly suited to resolve the Plaintiff' claims.
Not only is the instant action related to suits pending in the Southern District of New York, the JPML has also referred to it as a "potential tag-along" action. In re Oxycontin Antitrust Litigation, Docket No. 1603. In its transfer order, the JPML transferred several cases, not unlike the instant action, to the Southern District of New York. The Panel underscored the relatedness of the suits and the experience of Judge Stein in noting that Judge Stein has "already gained considerable experience with the issues present in this docket as a result of presiding over the patent infringement litigation upon which the MDL-1603 plaintiffs predicate their antitrust claims." Id.
Moreover, the convenience of the parties and witnesses favor transfer to the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiff's testimony is unlikely to be required as she is merely a class representative. Defendant Purdue's operations and the specific conduct giving rise to the instant action all took place in the New York metropolitan area. Curtis Affidavit ¶ 6. The Purdue patents were prosecuted in New York and Connecticut, most of the Purdue witnesses reside in New York, and Oxycontin itself was developed in New York.
III. CONCLUSION
Because the action is a class action, the underlying facts giving rise to the action arose in New York, the action is noted as a "potential tag-along" by the JPML, and the interests of justice favor transfer, the Court is convinced that transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), is appropriate. Therefore, it is
ADJUDGED that Defendants Motion to Transfer Proceeding to the Southern District of New York ( D.E. No. 11), filed on March 11. 2004 is GRANTED. Accordingly, it is further ADJUDGED that this action, case number 04-20360-CIV-MORENO is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Finally, it is
ADJUDGED that all other pending motions are DENIED as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED.