Spin Master, Inc. v. Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services, Inc.
1:13-cv-01196
W.D.N.Y.Dec 11, 2013Background
- This is a tort suit arising from harm to a child who ingested Aqua Dots, a children’s art product distributed by Spin Master entities.
- Spin Master seeks indemnity against Bureau Veritas for toxicity testing conduct related to Aqua Dots.
- A related action exists in New York where Spin Master pursues damages for litigation exposure and settlements tied to Aqua Dots.
- Plaintiffs’ action was filed in Arizona, removed, briefly MDL transferred to Illinois, then returned to this district.
- Spin Master moves to sever and transfer the third-party claim to New York; a forum-selection clause directs disputes to New York.
- The court must decide whether the third-party claim could have been brought in New York, and if transfer and severance are proper under § 1404(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the third-party claim have been brought in New York? | New York action already exists between Spin Master and Bureau Veritas. | Transfers are appropriate despite differences; defenses differ but do not bar transfer. | Yes; action might have been brought in New York. |
| Is transfer to New York in the interest of justice? | Public and private factors favor keeping matters closer to Arizona. | Forum-selection clause and related action favor New York. | Yes; transfer appropriate due to related actions and forum clause. |
| Should the third-party claim be severed from the main action? | Severance allows transfer while preserving primary action. | Severance is warranted to enable transfer and prevent prejudice. | Yes; severance ordered to effect transfer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1985) (two-part § 1404(a) analysis: venue and convenience)
- Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000) (burden on movant to show transfer is appropriate)
- Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1988) (factors for transfer include convenience, witnesses, cost, and public policy)
- Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834 (9th Cir. 1986) (section 1404(a) transfer requires convenience and justice balancing)
- A. J. Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 503 F.2d 384 (9th Cir. 1974) (comity and related-action considerations in transfer decisions)