Trizetto Group Inc. v. Farmaco-Logica B.V. ( 2013 )

SUMMARY MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER; NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
THE TRIZETTO GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 12-cv-1443 (RLW)
FARMACO-LOGICA, B.V.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 1
Plaintiff the TriZetto Group (“TriZetto”) brings this action under 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b)(4),
seeking review of an order from the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board (“TTAB”) denying
cancellation of Defendant Farmaco-Logica, B.V.’s (“Farmaco”) trademark for non-use.
Somewhat unconventionally, TriZetto now seeks to transfer its own case to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Having
carefully considered the parties’ respective briefing, and for the reasons set forth herein, the
Court will GRANT TriZetto’s Motion and will TRANSFER this action to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
1
This unpublished memorandum opinion is intended solely to inform the parties and any
reviewing court of the basis for the instant ruling, or, alternatively, to assist in any potential
future analysis of the res judicata, law of the case, or preclusive effect of the ruling. The Court
has designated this opinion as “not intended for publication,” but this Court cannot prevent or
prohibit the publication of this opinion in the various and sundry electronic and legal databases
(as it is a public document), and this Court cannot prevent or prohibit the citation of this opinion
by counsel. Cf. FED. R. APP. P. 32.1. Nonetheless, as stated in the operational handbook adopted
by our Court of Appeals, “counsel are reminded that the Court’s decision to issue an unpublished
disposition means that the Court sees no precedential value in that disposition.” D.C. Circuit
Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 43 (2011).
1
SUMMARY MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER; NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTERS
Historically, 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b)(4) provided that “the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction” over such an appeal if the adverse party resides
in a foreign country, as in this case. Congress amended that statute in September 2011, however,
to substitute the Eastern District of Virginia as the appropriate venue for such claims. In filing
the instant case in the District of Columbia, TriZetto apparently relied upon an outdated version
of the statute, and it now seeks to transfer this case to the Eastern District of Virginia to comport
with the requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b)(4). (See Dkt. No. 6-1). Farmaco opposes
TriZetto’s request, principally arguing that the Court has no power to transfer the case under 28
U.S.C. § 1406(a) because it lacks jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 9). Farmaco also argues that
transferring the case under §1406(a) would not be in “the interests of justice.” (Id.).
To begin with, Farmaco’s argument that the Court cannot transfer this action without first
confirming that it has personal and subject matter jurisdiction lacks merit. As the D.C. Circuit
has made clear, “certain non-merits, non-jurisdictional issues may be addressed preliminarily,
because ‘jurisdiction is vital only if the court proposes to issue a judgment on the merits.’”
Public Citizen v. United States Dist. Court, 486 F.3d 1342, 1348 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting
Sinochem Int’l Co. Ltd. v. Malay. Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431 (2007)); see also
Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 789 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (“A court may transfer a
case to another district even though it lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants.”).
Therefore, where appropriate, courts routinely transfer cases without resolving questions of
personal or subject matter jurisdiction beforehand. See, e.g., Aftab v. Gonzalez, 597 F. Supp. 2d
76, 79 (D.D.C. 2009) (collecting cases). In this case, the Court concludes that adjudicative
efficiency favors resolving TriZetto’s transfer request without addressing Farmaco’s
jurisdictional arguments.
2
SUMMARY MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER; NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTERS
28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) provides:
The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong
division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such
case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.
28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Transfer under § 1406(a) is favored “when procedural obstacles impede an
expeditious and orderly adjudication on the merits.” Sinclair v. Kleindienst, 711 F.2d 291, 293-
94 (D.C. Cir. 1983). “The decision whether a transfer or dismissal is in the interest of justice . . .
rests within the sound discretion of the district court.” Naartex, 722 F.2d at 789. In the instant
action, the Court concludes that transferring this matter to the Eastern District of Virginia, rather
than dismissing TriZetto’s claims, would be in the interest of justice.
It is clear that TriZetto’s decision to initially file this action in the District of Columbia
was the result of an honest, inadvertent mistake—namely, its reliance on an outdated version of
the recently-amended text of 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b)(4). Congress recently amended that statute—
which previously designated the District of Columbia as the district with exclusive jurisdiction
over these types of claims—to substitute the Eastern District of Virginia, where Trizetto now
seeks to transfer this case. As TriZetto points out, it is not uncommon for courts to transfer §
1071(b)(4) cases after they are initially filed in the wrong district. See, e.g., Flying Tiger Oil Co.
v. Flying Tigers Line, Inc., 118 F.R.D. 263, 263 (D.D.C. 1988); Cardwell v. Investor’s Analysis,
Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1395, 1398-99 (D.D.C. 1985); Del-Viking Prods. V. Estate of Johnson, 31
U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1063 (W.D. Pa. 1994); E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Gandelmo, 192 U.S.P.Q.
(BNA) 210 (D.D.C. 1976). Indeed, transfer is particularly appropriate where, as here, dismissal
would effectively preclude the review of an order from the TTAB on limitations grounds.
Cardwell, 620 F. Supp. at 1398-99 (“If the case is not transferred, plaintiff's claims would be
barred by the 60-day limitation of 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b).”). The Court finds Farmaco’s remaining
3
SUMMARY MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER; NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTERS
arguments unpersuasive and concludes that the interests of justice strongly weigh in favor of
transfer of this case, rather than dismissal.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, TriZetto’s Motion to Transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1406(a) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to TRANSFER this action to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Digitally signed by Judge Robert L.
Wilkins
DN: cn=Judge Robert L. Wilkins,
Date: January 11, 2013 o=U.S. District Court, ou=Chambers
of Honorable Robert L. Wilkins,
email=RW@dc.uscourt.gov, c=US
Date: 2013.01.11 13:50:23 -05'00'
ROBERT L. WILKINS
United States District Judge
4