Bartolucci v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc.
245 F. Supp. 3d 38
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Bartolucci, Ungvarsky, Henry) brought nationwide class antitrust suits (Sherman Act) and state-law claims alleging 1-800 Contacts conspired with competitors to suppress online advertising (negative-keyword agreements) and raise prices.
- Defendant 1-800 Contacts (headquartered in Draper, Utah) moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer two actions filed in D.C. to the District of Utah, where two substantially similar cases already had been transferred and other related suits were pending nationwide.
- Plaintiffs opposed transfer and sought pretrial consolidation (MDL) before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML). They also moved to stay proceedings pending the JPML decision; the court stayed only non-transfer proceedings.
- The court found venue in Utah was proper and that defendants would have been subject to personal jurisdiction there; plaintiffs did not dispute transferability.
- The court analyzed private (forum choice, convenience of parties/witnesses, location of events, access to proof) and public (familiarity with law, court congestion, local interests, related litigation/MDL concerns) interest factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the actions "might have been brought" in District of Utah (threshold for §1404(a)) | Plaintiffs did not dispute transferability. | Utah is proper venue; 1-800 Contacts is headquartered there and events occurred there. | Held: Uncontested — threshold satisfied. |
| Weight to give plaintiffs' choice of forum (D.C.) | Bartolucci/Ungvarsky live in D.C.; plaintiffs claim injury occurred in D.C. | Nationwide class actions and limited nexus to D.C. reduce deference. | Held: Limited deference; factor neutral-to-slightly favoring plaintiffs. |
| Whether related litigation and risk of duplicative nationwide class actions favor transfer vs. JPML consolidation | Plaintiffs prefer MDL consolidation in D.C. | Transfer to Utah promotes judicial economy, avoids overlapping class proceedings, and JPML consolidation is not the only or best solution. | Held: Related cases in Utah and risk of duplicative class suits weigh in favor of transfer. |
| Convenience of witnesses and parties (most critical private factor) | Plaintiffs: no strong showing that key witnesses unavailable if case tried in D.C.; FTC document production may be in D.C. | Defendant: key witnesses and decisionmakers located in Utah; subpoena power and witness convenience favor Utah. | Held: Convenience-of-witnesses evidence insufficiently detailed, factor neutral; overall private factors favor transfer. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Scott, 709 F.2d 717 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (district court has broad discretion to transfer venue under §1404(a))
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (U.S. 1964) (purpose of §1404(a) is to prevent waste of time, energy, and money and avoid unnecessary inconvenience)
- Relf v. Gasch, 511 F.2d 804 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (requirements for transferability: proper venue and defendants subject to process in transferee district)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (personal jurisdiction analysis for corporate contacts)
- Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (U.S. 1998) (limits of MDL centralization—panel must remand cases after pretrial proceedings)
- 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.com, Inc., 722 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2013) (related litigation between these parties litigated in Utah and affirmed on appeal)