77 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.D.C.2014Background
- Mary Matthews received Zometa/Aredia treatment first in Florida (2002–2003) then primarily in Georgia (2003–2006); she was diagnosed with osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) in Georgia in 2006.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in D.C. in 2007; the case was sent to MDL in Tennessee and remanded to D.C. in 2013.
- At remand the Court ordered briefing on whether to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Plaintiff (executor daughter) sought transfer to the Middle District of Florida, Novartis sought transfer to the Southern District of Georgia.
- The parties agreed the case should leave D.C.; the sole dispute was which of the two districts was the proper transferee forum.
- Key factual considerations: most treating physicians and where ONJ was diagnosed/treated are in Georgia; Plaintiff now resides in Middle District of Florida but lived and was treated in Georgia for the majority of the relevant period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transferee courts are proper venues | Both forums appropriate; prefers Middle District of Florida because plaintiff resides there | Southern District of Georgia is proper because most events/witnesses are there | Both districts are venues where case could have been brought; court proceeds to private/public interest balancing |
| Weight of plaintiff's choice of forum | Matthews' residence in Middle District of Florida favors that forum | Deference is weakened because Georgia has stronger factual nexus | Plaintiff's choice entitled to only slight weight; favors Florida only slightly |
| Convenience of witnesses and parties | Emphasizes initial prescriber in Florida; argues equal convenience for defendant | Most treating physicians and documentary sources are in Georgia; witness convenience favors Georgia | Witness convenience and access to proof favor transfer to Southern District of Georgia |
| Choice of law / public interest (familiarity with governing law) | Points to Middle District of Florida's experience with Zometa/Aredia MDL cases; argues Florida law may apply | Georgia law likely governs (injury, treatment, domicile); Southern District of Georgia more familiar with applicable state law | Court finds Georgia law likely governs and public-interest factors favor transfer to Southern District of Georgia |
Key Cases Cited
- Sheffer v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 873 F. Supp. 2d 371 (D.D.C. 2012) (discusses deference to plaintiff's forum in Zometa/Aredia context)
- Lentz v. Eli Lilly & Co., 464 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2006) (outlines § 1404(a) analysis)
- Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Bosworth, 180 F. Supp. 2d 124 (D.D.C. 2001) (lists private and public interest transfer factors)
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1988) (§ 1404(a) grants district courts case-by-case discretion)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (U.S. 1964) (transferee court must apply the law that would have applied absent transfer)
- Dean v. Eli Lilly & Co., 515 F. Supp. 2d 18 (D.D.C. 2007) (convenience of witnesses/subpoena power favors transfer where most witnesses are within transferee district)
- MacMunn v. Eli Lilly Co., 559 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D.D.C. 2008) (local interest and familiarity with governing state law favor transfer where most contacts/potential witnesses are in that state)