Cantrell v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation ( 2013 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
______________________________
)
MARCIA CANTRELL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 10-399 (RWR)
)
NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS )
CORPORATION, )
)
Defendant. )
______________________________)
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff Marcia Cantrell individually, and for the estate
of Truman Cantrell, brings suit against Novartis Pharmaceuticals
Corporation (“Novartis”) alleging that a drug that Novartis
produced and marketed injured Truman Cantrell. Novartis moves
under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer this case to the Southern
District of Ohio. Cantrell does not contest that the
requirements of § 1404(a) are met. See Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s
Mot. to Transfer (“Pl.’s Resp.”) at 1; see also Def. Novartis
Pharmaceuticals Corp.’s Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Transfer Venue
(“Def.’s Reply”), Ex. 1 (plaintiff’s counsel stating that he is
“in agreement [that this] case should be transferred”).
Section 1404(a) provides that “[f]or the convenience of
parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district
court may transfer any civil action to any other district or
division where it might have been brought or to any district or
-2-
division to which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a). Cantrell does not contest Novartis’ allegation that
this case could have been brought in the Southern District of
Ohio because the Cantrells resided in that district when they
filed suit. Similarly, Cantrell does not dispute Novartis’
contentions that “[t]his case has absolutely no nexus to
Washington, D.C.” and that “based on the location of relevant
witnesses and documents, the convenience of the parties and
witnesses to this action warrants transfer and therefore supports
transfer of this action to the Southern District of Ohio, Western
Division.” Def. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.’s Mot. to
Transfer Venue at 2–3 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, Novartis’ motion to transfer will be granted.
Cantrell requests that the order transferring this case
include “that the Statute of Limitations of the District of
Columbia applied [to Cantrell’s tort claims], or at least that
its choice of law rules on that question applied.” Pl.’s Resp.
at 1. Novartis contends that “Section 1404(a) ‘does not permit a
Court to consider a statute of limitations defense when
determining whether the transfer is appropriate.’” Def.’s Reply
at 2 (quoting Joyner v. Reno, 466 F. Supp. 2d 31, 36 (D.D.C.
2006)). However, “Novartis agrees that, under Van Dusen v.
Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (19[64]), the choice-of-law rules of the
District of Columbia will apply to this case when transferred
-3-
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).”1 Def.’s Reply at 2 n.3. Thus,
the parties agree that the District of Columbia’s choice of law
rules apply to this case.
Because transfer is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and the
parties agree that the District of Columbia’s choice of law rules
apply to this case, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendant’s motion [10] to transfer this case
to the Southern District of Ohio be, and hereby is, GRANTED.
District of Columbia choice of law rules apply to this case.
SIGNED this 19th day of August, 2013.
/s/
RICHARD W. ROBERTS
Chief Judge
1
Van Dusen provides that when a case is transferred, the
transferee court must apply the choice of law rules of the state
from which the case was transferred. See Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at
639 (“[W]here the defendants seek transfer, the transferee
district court must be obligated to apply the state law that
would have been applied if there had been no change of venue. A
change of venue under § 1404(a) generally should be, with respect
to state law, but a change of courtrooms.”); see also Piper
Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 243 n.8 (1981).