Bozic v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Cal.
888 F.3d 1048
| 9th Cir. | 2018Background
- Regina Bozic, a Pennsylvania purchaser of the weight-loss supplement Lipozene, filed a putative consumer class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California asserting state-law claims and seeking declaratory relief about a 2005 FTC consent decree.
- Two related putative class actions already existed in California: Duran (San Diego Superior Court) and Fernandez (E.D. Cal.). Fernandez has been stayed pending Duran since 2013.
- Defendants moved in the Southern District to transfer Bozic's suit to the Eastern District under the first-to-file rule so it could be consolidated with Fernandez; the Southern District granted transfer.
- Bozic petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus to vacate the transfer order, arguing venue in the Eastern District was improper and that the transfer was clear legal error.
- The Ninth Circuit held the transfer was clear legal error because § 1404(a) permits transfer only to districts "where [the case] might have been brought," and venue in the Eastern District was not proper for Bozic's individual claims; but the court denied mandamus because relief would be speculative and the case is currently stayed pending Duran.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfer under the first-to-file rule can send the case to a district where venue would not have been proper under § 1391/§ 1404(a) | Transfer to E.D. Cal. was improper because venue there is not proper for Bozic's individual claims | First-to-file rule permits transfer/stay/dismissal; it can override § 1404(a) venue limits to effectuate comity and consolidation | Transfer was clear legal error: § 1404(a) limits transfer to districts where the action "might have been brought"; first-to-file does not negate that limit |
| Whether venue in the Eastern District is proper for Bozic under § 1391(b)(2) (events or omissions) | Venue is improper because Bozic purchased Lipozene in Pennsylvania and her individualized events did not occur in E.D. Cal. | Venue is proper because putative class members bought in the Eastern District; class character makes venue proper there | Venue improper: unnamed class members' contacts cannot supply venue for the named plaintiff; venue analysis looks only to events relevant to the named plaintiff |
| Whether mandamus relief should issue to vacate the transfer despite clear legal error | Mandamus needed because transfer prejudices Bozic and deprives Southern District adjudication (especially re: FTC decree) | Mandamus is extraordinary; even if transfer erred, relief may be speculative and other remedies exist | Mandamus denied: although transfer was clear error, Bauman factors show writ inappropriate because injury is speculative and alternative remedies (stay, later motions, appeal, renewed mandamus if necessary) are available |
| Whether Bozic is harmed by loss of Southern District's connection to FTC consent-decree issues | Southern District uniquely retains jurisdiction over decree enforcement; transfer frustrates declaratory relief | Bozic lacks standing to enforce the FTC consent decree as a third party; moving venue does not eliminate her options | No cognizable prejudice shown: Bozic lacks enforcement standing and Eastern District has jurisdiction over the other claims; any harm is speculative |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367 (2004) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and petitioner must show no other adequate means)
- Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394 (1976) (standards for issuing mandamus)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964) (§ 1404(a) transfer power limited to districts where the action might originally have been brought)
- Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335 (1960) (defendant cannot expand the set of districts where a case "might have been brought")
- Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93 (9th Cir. 1982) (first-to-file rule as a federal comity doctrine)
- Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Shalala, 125 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 1997) (district court discretion under first-to-file to transfer, stay, or dismiss second-filed case)
- Abrams Shell v. Shell Oil Co., 343 F.3d 482 (5th Cir. 2003) (venue in class actions depends on named plaintiffs' contacts, not unnamed class members')