Lisa Mollicone v. Universal Handicraft, Inc.
2:16-cv-07322
C.D. Cal.Apr 17, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Lisa Mollicone filed a class action in the Central District of California alleging that Universal Handicraft, Inc. (UHI) and its president Shay Segev made false and misleading anti‑aging claims about Adore Organic Innovation products containing Mibelle’s “PhytoCellTec” plant stem cells.
- SAC asserts fraud, omission, negligent misrepresentation, rescission, quasi‑contract, express and implied warranty claims, CLRA, FAL, UCL, and New Jersey consumer statutes on behalf of a class.
- Plaintiff purchased a CELLMAX kit in Beverly Hills (shipped to New Jersey) and paid about $1,000; she alleges reliance on product labels and online marketing that touted clinical/anti‑aging benefits.
- Defendants are organized and principally located in Miami Beach, Florida; plaintiff alleges Segev may be alter‑ego and personally liable; Mibelle (Switzerland) is the ingredient source and non‑party witness.
- UHI moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the action to the Southern District of Florida (alternative: District of New Jersey); the Court granted transfer to the Southern District of Florida.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Southern District of Florida is a proper venue | Plaintiff disputed transfer; emphasized purchase in California and connection to this district | UHI argued Florida is proper because it and Segev are domiciled there and operative events occurred there | Court found venue proper in Southern District of Florida under § 1391(b)(1) and (b)(2) |
| Whether transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is warranted | Plaintiff urged deference to plaintiff’s forum and California’s interest; minimized inconvenience to witnesses and evidence | UHI argued convenience of parties/witnesses and interests of justice favor Florida (defendants and many witnesses in Florida; non‑party evidence in Florida/Switzerland) | Court granted transfer: convenience of parties and witnesses and interests of justice favor Florida |
| Weight to afford plaintiff’s choice of forum in class action where plaintiff is nonresident | Plaintiff relied on forum choice and California law familiarity | UHI argued less deference because plaintiff is nonresident and this is a class action | Court accorded reduced weight to plaintiff’s forum choice and found other factors outweighed it |
| Convenience of witnesses and access to proof | Plaintiff argued electronic discovery and lack of detailed witness proffers by UHI | UHI identified party witnesses in Florida and nonparty Mibelle witnesses in Europe; physical evidence located in Miami | Court found witness convenience favored Florida despite some deficiency in defendant’s proffer; nonparty witness convenience critical and favored transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000) (enumerates factors for § 1404(a) interests‑of‑justice analysis)
- Stewart Org. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988) (forum‑selection and transfer principles)
- Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1987) (plaintiff’s forum choice given less weight in representative actions)
- Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270 (9th Cir. 1979) (burden on moving party to show transfer appropriate)
- Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1988) (discretionary nature of venue transfer decision)
- Myers v. Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2001) (assessing substantiality of operative events for venue analysis)