18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 735 Division were links to Brooklyn, and not ties because the actions arose within the Long Island Division. Accordingly, the Court transferred the action to the Brooklyn County State Court. Tang, et al. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100395 (D.N.J. May 27, 2021). Plaintiff brought a putative class action alleging securities violations arising from a $765 million government loan to Defendant to manufacture COVID-19 drugs. Specifically, Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that Defendant’s shares traded at artificially high prices because Defendant inadvertently alerted media about a new manufacturing initiative that could change the course of history for Rochester and the American people. A trading frenzy ensued where investors moved 1.65 million shares that day, up from 75,000 previously, but once news broke of an unusual option grant that preceded the loan, the stock prices dropped. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), Defendant moved to transfer the matter from the District of New Jersey where Plaintiff had filed the action to a different venue, either the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) or the Western District of New York (“WDNY”). The Court transferred the case to the WDNY on the grounds that it was the most appropriate forum. Section 1404(a) permits transfer of a federal action from one district to another for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, as long as the transferee court is one in which the action could have been brought originally and essentially requires an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness. To that end, the Court considered whether the action could have been brought in the transferee district. Considering the relevant statutes, the Court concluded that Plaintiff could have originally filed his complaint in the SDNY, the WDNY, or New Jersey. The Court opined that the private interest factors favored transfer to the WDNY. Specifically, the Court found it important the Defendant was headquartered in Rochester, and kept no offices or employees in the SDNY or New Jersey and there was no dispute that company executives in Rochester undertook the very actions that gave rise to Plaintiff’s claims. Further, the Court considered various public interest factors, including: (i) the enforceability of the judgment; (ii) practical considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive; (iii) the relative administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting from docket congestion; (iv) the local interest in deciding local controversies at home; (v) the public policies of the fora; and (vi) the familiarity of the trial judge with the applicable state law in diversity cases. Weighing these factors, the Court held that they favored transfer to the WDNY. While some of the factors were neutral, the Court determined that transfer to the WDNY would make a trial substantially easier on Defendant and the witnesses, and no harder on anyone else. Accordingly, the Court transferred the matter to the Western District of New York. Texas, et al. v. Google LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96586 (E.D. Tex. May 20, 2021). Plaintiffs – the States of Texas, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah, and the Commonwealths of Kentucky and Puerto Rico – filed a class action alleging that Defendant violated § 2 of the Sherman Act, as well as applicable state antitrust laws, by unlawfully maintaining a monopoly, or attempting to acquire a monopoly, in markets associated with online display advertising. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant engaged in anticompetitive conduct to force publishers and advertisers to use its online- display-advertising products or services. Defendant filed a motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). It argued that the matter should be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California because it was a clearly more convenient forum for this action. Plaintiffs opposed the motion on the basis that the private-interest and public-interest factors in the § 1404(a) analysis did not warrant the transfer. The Court determined that Defendant, as the only Defendant in this case, had its headquarters and principal place of business in the Northern District of California. Accordingly, the Court found that the case could have properly been filed in the Northern District of California under both 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and 15 U.S.C. § 22. Id . at *9-10. In analyzing each of the private-interest and public-interest factors, the Court ruled that Defendant failed to demonstrate that the ease of access to sources of proof was relatively greater in the Northern District of California than in the Eastern District of Texas. Further, the Court noted that much of the relevant documentary evidence was located in Austin, Texas. Accordingly, the Court determined this factor weighed against transfer. The Court agreed with both parties that the presence of potential non-party witnesses within both the respective ambits of both districts meant that this factor was neutral. As to the inconvenience to the party witnesses, the Court opined that there were very few that transfer would benefit, thus weighing against transfer. In addition, the Court reasoned that Defendant was correct that the central allegations in the cases pending against it in the Northern District of California currently mirrored Plaintiffs’ allegations, but they involved different claims, parties, defenses, and damages than this case. Id . at *24. The Court therefore determined that Defendant failed to establish that transfer would clearly preserve or result in judicial economy. The Court likewise observed that this