PONTRELLI v. MONA VIE, INC.
2:13-cv-04649
D.N.J.Oct 27, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Lisa Pontrelli (New Jersey resident) sued MonaVie (Utah corporation) in New Jersey on behalf of a putative class alleging false advertising and consumer fraud about MonaVie juice products. Claims: NJCFA, common law fraud, unjust enrichment.
- MonaVie’s principal place of business is South Jordan, Utah; MonaVie later went out of business and its assets were foreclosed.
- A related insurance-coverage declaratory action, Starr Indemnity v. MonaVie, and a related consumer action, Harbut v. MonaVie, are pending in the District of Utah; Harbut was transferred to Utah during the pendency of this motion.
- Pontrelli moved to transfer this New Jersey case to the District of Utah under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), arguing changed circumstances (MonaVie’s insolvency and the Starr coverage dispute) made Utah the more appropriate forum and that resolution of Starr could affect recovery here.
- Defendants opposed, arguing the insurance dispute is separate from the merits here, that no changed circumstances warrant transfer, and suggesting the motion was forum shopping.
- The court granted Pontrelli’s motion, finding transfer to Utah serves the interest of justice and convenience given MonaVie’s location, related actions in Utah, witness locations, potential impact of the Starr coverage ruling, and relative court congestion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is appropriate | Transfer is warranted because MonaVie is defunct and key related litigation (Starr, Harbut) is in Utah; insurance coverage disposition will affect recovery and litigation efficiency favors consolidation in Utah | Transfer is unnecessary; Starr is unrelated to merits and there has been no material change since filing; motion is forum shopping | Granted: court found interests of justice and convenience favor transfer given changed circumstances and related proceedings in Utah |
| Weight of plaintiff’s initial forum choice | Plaintiff’s New Jersey choice is outweighed because she moved to transfer and circumstances changed after filing | Plaintiff’s home-forum choice should retain significant weight | Court gave limited weight to original forum because plaintiff sought transfer and related proceedings and changed circumstances favor Utah |
| Convenience of parties and witnesses | Most defense witnesses and relevant former employees are in Utah; MonaVie headquartered in Utah; financial condition favors litigating where potential recovery (insurance) is pending | Defendants prefer New Jersey and case was pending there | Court found convenience favors Utah (defendants’ witnesses and locus of corporate remnants in Utah) |
| Judicial efficiency and related cases | Consolidation with Starr and Harbut in Utah would conserve resources and avoid duplicative litigation; plaintiff has moved to intervene in Starr | MDL Panel previously denied centralization; relatedness is insufficient to transfer | Court held relatedness and recent transfer of Harbut to Utah support transfer to promote efficiency |
Key Cases Cited
- Plum Tree, Inc. v. Stockment, 488 F.2d 754 (3d Cir. 1973) (district court’s § 1404(a) transfer decision is reviewed for discretion)
- Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1995) (Jumara factors frame private and public interests for § 1404(a) analysis)
- Shutte v. Armco Steel Co., 431 F.2d 22 (3d Cir. 1970) (plaintiff’s forum choice is ordinarily entitled to substantial weight)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (U.S. 1964) (transfer aims to prevent waste of time, energy, and money and protect against unnecessary inconvenience)
- In re United States, 273 F.3d 380 (3d Cir. 2001) (moving party need not show truly compelling circumstances; overall convenience and justice govern transfer)
- Teleconference Sys. v. Proctor & Gamble Pharm., Inc., 676 F. Supp. 2d 321 (D. Del. 2009) (convenience of witnesses and access to proof weigh in § 1404(a) analysis)
- Calkins v. Dollarland, Inc., 117 F. Supp. 2d 421 (D.N.J. 2000) (§ 1404(a) analysis is flexible and fact-specific)