PHILADELPHIA – A federal court in Philadelphia will now be the venue for inferior vena cava filter litigation, after a motion to effectuate such a transfer went unopposed in a federal court in Dallas.
Per the order of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Judge Karen Gren Scholer on Aug. 17, plaintiff Marilena Cruz’s and other women's lawsuit against C.R. Bard, Inc. and other defendants would be severed from a group of lawsuits based in Texas, and sent to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The plaintiffs filed the action in the state district court, and the defendants timely removed the case to the Texas federal court in Dallas based on diversity of citizenship. Meanwhile, a group of plaintiffs, including Cruz, filed the pending motion to transfer on Aug. 11, 2020, and defendants agree with plaintiffs’ request to sever the cases.
“Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion and finds that severance of the out-of-state plaintiffs is in the interest of justice,” Scholer stated.
According to Scholer, a district court “may transfer any civil action to any other district or division in which itmight have been brought for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, if such transfer is in the interest of justice” and the moving party “bears the burden of demonstrating that a transfer of venue is warranted for convenience purposes.”
Per Jumara, a series of private and public interest factors are used to determine whether or not a transfer is in the interest of justice.
The private interest factors are: “(1) The relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) The availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses; (3) The cost of attendance for willing witnesses; and (4) All other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.”
The public interest factors are: “(1) The administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) The local interest in having localized interests decided at home; (3) The familiarity of the forum with the lawthat will govern the case; and (4) The avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws of theapplication of foreign law.”
“Plaintiffs request this Court to transfer the out-of-state plaintiffs to the jurisdictions in which they had surgery for the implantation of their Bard inferior vena cava filter. The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b)(2),” Scholer said.
“With respect to the private and public interest factors, plaintiffs assert that the out-of-state plaintiffs have essentially no connection to the state of Texas. Theyreside outside of Texas, they were not implanted with a Bard inferior vena cava filter in Texas, and essentially all of their medical treatment took place outside of Texas. In summary, none of the out-of-state plaintiffs have any connection whatsoever to the Dallas Divisionof the Northern District of Texas, based on the evidence presented to the Court.”
Scholer added the proposed transfer jurisdictions correspond with the many of the out-of-state plaintiffs’ residences, and the out-of-state plaintiffs received at least some medical care in that jurisdiction.
“Thus, the private and public interest factors weigh in favor of transfer, as (1) Transfer will allow for ease of access to sources of proof; (2) Medical provider witnesses should be accessible through service of process; (3) Travel costs should be minimized; and (4) There is a local interest due to those plaintiffs’ residences. Defendants agree that plaintiff has identified the proper transferee district for the out-of-state plaintiffs,” Scholer said.
“As a result, the Court finds that plaintiffs have met their burden to clearly demonstrate that the proposed jurisdictions are more convenient forums for the parties and witnesses than the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas. Plaintiff Marilena Cruz’s case be severed and transferred to the Philadelphia Division of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.”
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-04035
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas case 3:20-cv-01473
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com