Insulate SB, Inc. v. Abrasive Products & Equipment
1:13-cv-01609
M.D. Penn.Sep 27, 2013Background
- Graco moves to transfer the action to the District of Minnesota; transfer is discretionary under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- Plaintiff Insulate SB, Inc. sues Graco, Inc. and related distributors in a nationwide antitrust class action alleging hub-and-spoke conspiracy and vertical price fixing.
- Complaint filed June 14, 2013; Plaintiff seeks preliminary injunction and expedited discovery; court stayed injunction request pending discovery, then Graco moves to transfer venue.
- Center of gravity alleged to be Minnesota; Graco has principal place of business in Minnesota; most material events and witnesses located there.
- Court applies Jumara private/public factor framework to assess transfer viability; venue is initially proper in Minnesota; analysis then addresses private and public factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue is proper in Minnesota | Graco majority events in Minnesota; Pennsylvania improper | Minnesota proper; central facts there | Venue proper in Minnesota |
| Whether the action should be transferred under § 1404(a) | Plaintiff’s forum choice should be given deference | Private/public factors favor Minnesota | Transfer to Minnesota warranted by private/public factors |
| Where the claims arose | No single center; nationwide conspiracy | Most conspiratorial conduct occurred in Minnesota | Center of gravity in Minnesota; weighs toward transfer |
| Convenience of witnesses and records | Some witnesses in Pa.; others elsewhere | More witnesses/records in Minnesota; others in Pa. | Witness/records convenience favors Minnesota |
| Public factors and local interest | Nationwide impact; no Pennsylvania state law focus | Minnesota has stronger local interest and familiarity with Minnesota law | Public factors favor Minnesota |
Key Cases Cited
- Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1995) (private/public factor framework for transfer analysis)
- Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517 (1988) (center of gravity and forum connection in transfer decisions)
- Park Inn Int’l., L.L.C. v. Mody Enterprises, Inc., 105 F.Supp.2d 370 (D.N.J. 2000) (center of gravity and local-interest considerations in transfer)
- Coppola v. Ferrellgas, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 195 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (application of private factors in transfer decisions)
- Yang v. Odom, 409 F.Supp.2d 599 (D.N.J. 2006) (plaintiff’s forum choice reduced in class action and cross-forum considerations)
- In re Buffets Holdings, Inc., 397 B.R. 725 (Bankr. D. Del. 2008) (enforcement/public-factor considerations in transfer context)