DIEBLER v. SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL, LLC
1:19-cv-20155
D.N.J.Sep 18, 2023Background
- Plaintiffs (Holly Deibler; Edward and Diane Lenhart) are New Jersey residents who purchased dietary supplements (SeroVital, GF-9, Thrive, SeroDyne) and allege the products were falsely advertised to increase human growth hormone and provide anti‑aging benefits; the FAC asserts NJ Consumer Fraud Act, breach of express warranty, and a RICO claim and seeks a nationwide class with a New Jersey subclass.
- Defendants are a network of Basic Research–related entities and individuals alleged to operate from Salt Lake City, Utah (Basic Research subsidiaries, SanMedica, Limitless, Novex, and individuals Gay, Daines, Blackett, Humpherys, and Friedlander); Plaintiffs allege the affiliates marketed the same product formula under different brands to avoid liability.
- Procedural posture: original suit filed 2019; earlier transfer motion denied in 2020; Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint adding many defendants and a RICO claim; defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and/or transfer; parties filed a joint motion to seal certain exhibits.
- District Court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (two-step analysis and Jumara factors) and concluded the action could have been brought in the District of Utah and that, on balance, private and public factors favor transfer to Utah.
- Disposition: the court denied the pending motions to dismiss as moot (because it will transfer), granted in part and denied in part the joint sealing motion (ordered specific redactions), and gave Limitless and Friedlander 30 days to show cause why the case should not be transferred to the District of Utah.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is warranted | Deibler: New Jersey forum preference is presumptively correct; significant New Jersey contacts and New Jersey subclass favor keeping case here | Moving Defs: Utah is the nerve center of the alleged enterprise; most relevant conduct, witnesses, and records are in Utah | Transfer to District of Utah warranted; court will order transfer unless Limitless and Friedlander show cause otherwise |
| Whether the action could have been originally brought in Utah (jurisdiction/venue) | Plaintiffs: RICO and state claims tied to New Jersey purchases; dispute over personal jurisdiction | Defs: Most defendants domiciled/doing business in Utah; venue and personal jurisdiction clearly appropriate in Utah | Court: Plaintiffs could have brought the action in Utah (personal jurisdiction and venue appropriate there) |
| Weight to afford plaintiff’s forum choice (class action context) | Deibler: Choice of forum merits strong deference because class reps are NJ residents and represent NJ subclass | Defs: Deference reduced for nationwide class; operative events occurred in Utah | Court: Forum choice is neutral/diminished for a nationwide class; does not outweigh other Jumara factors favoring transfer |
| Sealing of documents | Plaintiffs & SanMedica: certain sales figures, marketing strategies, deposition excerpts are confidential and disclosure would cause competitive harm | Public interest: judicial records presumptively public; sealing requires particularized showing of serious harm | Court: Joint motion to seal granted in part and denied in part; ordered specific redactions and filing of redacted versions within 30 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Danziger & De Llano, LLP v. Morgan Verkamp LLC, 948 F.3d 124 (3d Cir. 2020) (district court may sua sponte transfer under §1404(a))
- Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1995) (factors for §1404(a) transfer analysis)
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for venue transfer rulings)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (general personal jurisdiction and domicile principles)
- Laurel Gardens, LLC v. McKenna, 948 F.3d 105 (3d Cir. 2020) (RICO and nationwide service discussion in personal jurisdiction context)
- Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fogel, 656 F.3d 167 (3d Cir. 2011) (district court authority to transfer under §1404(a))
- Solomon v. Continental American Life Insurance Co., 472 F.2d 1043 (3d Cir. 1973) (courts have broad discretion in evaluating transfer requests)
- Murphy v. Eisai, Inc., 503 F. Supp. 3d 207 (D.N.J. 2020) (discussion of domicile and personal jurisdiction for individuals and LLCs)