In Re Ferrero Litigation
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50592
S.D. Cal.2011Background
- Consolidated consumer class action alleging Nutella labeling misleads consumers about healthfulness and sugar content.
- Plaintiffs allege California UCL, FAL, CLRA violations, plus breach of express and implied warranties.
- Ferrero U.S.A., Inc. moved to transfer the action to the District of New Jersey (28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)).
- Plaintiffs opposed the transfer; court held oral argument unnecessary and ruled without prejudice on the motion.
- Court evaluated transfer under the Jones nonexclusive factors and related authorities, denying transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1404(a) transfer to NJ is warranted. | Plaintiffs argue forum in California is proper; weight favors plaintiffs' forum. | Ferrero argues New Jersey is more convenient because misrepresentations occurred there. | Transfer denied; factors weigh against transfer or are neutral. |
| Weight given to plaintiff's forum choice in a class action. | Plaintiffs' home forum should receive substantial deference. | In class actions, plaintiff's choice weighs less but remains considered. | Plaintiff's choice given substantial weight; weighs against transfer. |
| Convenience of third-party witnesses and ability to compel testimony. | Identified multiple third-party witnesses within subpoena power; California witnesses available. | Key witnesses located on East Coast; transfer would aid third-party access. | Factor neutral; consideration of witnesses does not compel transfer. |
| Familiarity with governing law and relative court congestion. | California law governs all claims; local court familiarity weighs against transfer. | District of New Jersey congestion and convenience arguments support transfer. | Favors retention in California; weighs against transfer. |
| Existence of related actions and potential consolidation/first-to-file considerations. | New Jersey action could be consolidated; first-to-file should not displace this action. | Related action in NJ supports transfer for efficiency. | First-to-file and related-action considerations weigh against transfer; no clear consolidation incentive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988) (district court has discretion in transfer decisions; case-by-case analysis)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964) (transfer decisions should preserve legal rights and forum>)
- Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000) (nonexclusive Jones factors for transfer analysis)
- Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834 (9th Cir. 1986) (forum convenience and transfer considerations)
- Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 486 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2007) (consideration of forum connections and related factors)
- Shultz v. Hyatt Vacation Mktg. Corp., 2011 WL 768735 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (weight of witness convenience and related factors in transfer)
- Getz v. Boeing Co., 547 F. Supp. 2d 1080 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (court familiarity with governing law in California cases)