Association of Unit Owners of East Village at Orenco Station, a Condominium v. Uponor Inc.
3:11-cv-01169
| D. Or. | Dec 13, 2013Background
- Plaintiff: Association of Unit Owners of East Village at Orenco Station (Oregon condo association) sued Uponor, Inc. alleging brass fittings dezincified and damaged property; seeks to proceed as a putative Oregon class action.
- Defendant: Uponor is headquartered in Minnesota; several related actions (one putative national class and six state class actions) alleging the same defect were filed and consolidated in the District of Minnesota (George).
- Procedural posture: Uponor moved to transfer this Oregon action to the District of Minnesota under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); the Court held a hearing and permitted a transfer motion; Court granted transfer.
- Key factual points affecting transfer: Defendant’s headquarters, witnesses, and likely corporate records are in Minnesota; plaintiff’s replaced fittings are stored in Washington; many related cases and consolidated discovery are already in Minnesota.
- Court’s practical concerns: consolidation with George promotes efficiency, avoids inconsistent rulings, centralizes discovery and witnesses, and serves convenience and the interest of justice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue transfer under §1404(a) is appropriate | Association argued case should remain in Oregon because forum proximity to the Condominium, ongoing discovery and class-cert motion, and application of Oregon law favor Oregon | Uponor argued Minnesota is proper because defendant is headquartered there, key witnesses and records are there, and multiple related actions already consolidated in Minnesota | Transfer granted: overall convenience and interest of justice favor Minnesota due to consolidation and defendant contacts |
| Weight of plaintiff’s choice of forum | Plaintiff asserted deference to its chosen forum given local interest and prior litigation progress | Uponor noted plaintiff is a putative class representative and thus its choice merits less weight; many related actions were transferred to Minnesota | Court gave plaintiff’s forum choice reduced weight and found it favored transfer |
| Convenience of witnesses and access to evidence | Plaintiff claimed inconvenience to volunteer board witnesses and that documents could be moved or produced electronically | Uponor identified corporate witnesses in Minnesota and argued consolidation concentrates documentary evidence there | Court found witness convenience factor neutral but access to evidence favored transfer because much discovery and evidence were or would be in Minnesota |
| Related actions and risk of inconsistent rulings | Plaintiff argued unique Oregon-law issues (e.g., local water differences) and prior discovery in Oregon weigh against transfer | Uponor emphasized pending consolidation of seven related actions in Minnesota and efficiencies from centralized proceedings | Court held pendency of related actions in Minnesota strongly favored transfer to avoid duplicate discovery and inconsistent results |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. GNC Franchising, 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000) (§1404(a) requires individualized convenience and fairness analysis using enumerated factors)
- Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1987) (plaintiff’s forum choice entitled to less weight in class actions)
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988) (§1404(a) vests broad discretion in district courts to transfer for convenience)
- Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834 (9th Cir. 1986) (general deference to plaintiff’s forum choice principles)
- A.J. Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Central Dist. of Cal., 503 F.2d 384 (9th Cir. 1974) (pendency of a related action in another district supports transfer for consolidation and convenience)
- Continental Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19 (1960) (transfer can prevent wasteful duplication of time, energy, and money when identical issues are pending in separate districts)