Hawkins v. Gerber Products Co.
924 F. Supp. 2d 1208
S.D. Cal.2013Background
- Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Gerber and Nestlé in February 2012 asserting false advertising under California law and related claims.
- Between Feb and Apr 2012, ten similar lawsuits were filed in six districts, prompting JPML consideration but no MDL centralization; transfer under §1404 was deemed preferable to centralization.
- Plaintiff’s FAC narrowed claims to California law; all plaintiffs are California residents who bought products there; Gerber is headquartered in New Jersey; Nestlé is Delaware corporation with California principal place of business.
- Defendants moved to transfer to the District of New Jersey on Nov 29, 2012; five related actions have since been consolidated in NJ, including the Siddiqi action originally filed in California.
- The court considers whether this action should transfer to NJ for consolidation or proceed separately in California, and whether venue is proper in CA and could have been brought in NJ.
- The action may be brought in NJ under CAFA jurisdiction, and the court weighs convenience, witnesses, access to evidence, applicable law, local interest, and administrative efficiency in deciding transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue is proper in CA and this action could have been brought in NJ | Plaintiff argues CAFA and connections to CA support CA venue; NJ is convenient for consolidated actions. | Defendants contend NJ is proper and better for consolidation and witnesses; CA venue is appropriate for CA plaintiffs only. | Yes; NJ could have heard the case and transfer is appropriate. |
| Whether the action should be transferred to NJ for efficiency and consolidation | Limited connection to CA favors retaining in CA; consolidation would burden if not transferred. | Consolidation with five NJ actions promotes efficiency, avoids duplicative discovery, and prevents inconsistent judgments. | Transfer to NJ is warranted to consolidate related actions and conserve resources. |
| How much weight to give Plaintiff's forum choice in a class action | Plaintiff's California forum choice should be given deference in class actions. | In class actions, the named plaintiff's forum choice has reduced weight due to forum shopping concerns; marketing decisions center in NJ. | Plaintiff's forum choice receives limited weight; weighs in favor of transfer due to related actions and center of operations in NJ. |
| Whether convenience of witnesses and access to evidence favors transfer | Most witnesses located in CA; California is preferred for evidence and witnesses. | Majority of witnesses and Gerber personnel are in NJ; access to corporate records largely in NJ. | Factor neutral to slight favor toward NJ due to witness distribution and corporate evidence location. |
| Whether administrative considerations favor transfer | NJ docket congestion weighs against transfer. | Multiple related actions in NJ promote efficiency; denial would double costs if suits proceed separately. | Administrative efficiency favors transfer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (U.S. 1964) (transfer under §1404 aims to avoid inconvenience and waste)
- Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000) (transfer discretion is broad and individualized)
- Vu v. Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc., 602 F.Supp.2d 1151 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (feasibility of transfer requires proper venue and where action could have been brought)
- Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834 (9th Cir. 1986) (balance private and public factors in transfer decisions)
- Getz v. Boeing Co., 547 F. Supp. 2d 1080 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (forum familiarity with law and efficiency considerations)
- A.J. Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 503 F.2d 384 (9th Cir. 1974) (important transfer factor considerations)
- Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1955) (plaintiff's choice of forum considerations in transfer rules)
- Metz v. U.S. Life Ins. Co. in City of New York, 674 F.Supp.2d 1141 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (law familiarity and choice of law considerations in transfer)
- Telepharmacy Solutions v. Pickpoint Corp., 238 F.Supp.2d 741 (E.D. Va. 2003) (docket considerations cannot drive transfer; interests of justice)