Lisa Mollicone v. Universal Handicraft, Inc.
1:17-cv-21468
S.D. Fla.Apr 17, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Mollicone filed a class action alleging that Universal Handicraft, Inc. (UHI) and Shay Segev made false and misleading anti‑aging claims about Adore Organic Innovation cosmetic products containing a proprietary plant stem‑cell ingredient (PhytoCellTec).
- Plaintiff alleges express and implied warranty, fraud, CLRA, FAL, UCL, and certain New Jersey consumer‑protection claims; she purchased a CELLMAX kit in Beverly Hills and shipped it to New Jersey.
- UHI is incorporated and principally located in Miami Beach, Florida; Segev is alleged to live in Florida and to control UHI (alter ego/veil‑piercing allegations).
- Plaintiff contends the plant stem cells are nonviable and not clinically proven to provide anti‑aging benefits; FDA warning letters to similar manufacturers are cited.
- UHI moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case to the Southern District of Florida (or alternatively to New Jersey).
- The district court found venue proper in S.D. Florida and granted transfer, concluding convenience and the interests of justice favor Florida.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue should be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) | Mollicone argued U.S. District Court for C.D. Cal. is proper and emphasized California connections (purchase in Beverly Hills, California law familiarity) | UHI argued Southern District of Florida is more convenient (company and key witnesses located in Miami; evidence and discovery in FL/Switzerland) | Transfer granted to S.D. Fla.: convenience of parties and witnesses and interests of justice favor transfer |
| Weight of plaintiff's choice of forum in class action where plaintiff is non‑resident | Plaintiff urged deference to forum choice and familiarity with California law | UHI argued plaintiff is non‑resident and class action reduces weight of forum choice | Court gave reduced weight to plaintiff's forum choice because she is non‑resident and this is a putative class action |
| Convenience of witnesses (party and non‑party) | Plaintiff challenged specificity of defendant’s witness list and relevance | UHI pointed to party witnesses in Florida and non‑party foreign witnesses (Mibelle in Switzerland), none in C.D. Cal. | Court found witness convenience favors Florida; no identified witnesses reside in this district |
| Interests of justice (access to evidence, local interest, court congestion) | Plaintiff argued electronic discovery and Court familiarity with CA law favor staying in C.D. Cal.; emphasized purchase in CA for local interest | UHI argued most contacts, evidence, and relevant personnel are in Florida or Switzerland; S.D. Fla. has marginally faster docket | Court balanced factors and concluded interests of justice favor transfer to S.D. Fla. despite plaintiff’s purchase in CA |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000) (lists § 1404(a) factors and interests‑of‑justice considerations)
- Stewart Org. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988) (plaintiff's choice of forum ordinarily entitled to deference)
- Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1987) (named plaintiff's forum choice given less weight in class or derivative suits, or where plaintiff is non‑resident)
- Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270 (9th Cir. 1979) (burden on movant to show transfer is warranted)
- Myers v. Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2001) (assessing substantiality of operative events for venue questions)
- Saleh v. Titan Corp., 361 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (convenience of non‑party witnesses is especially important in § 1404(a) analysis)