MacMunn v. Eli Lilly Co.
Not available in provided text (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff's choice of forum is given less deference when the plaintiff does not reside in the chosen forum and the forum has no meaningful connection to the events giving rise to the claim. A court may transfer a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) when the private and public interest factors, such as the convenience of witnesses and the local interest in the controversy, strongly favor the alternative forum.
Facts:
- In 1962, Judith MacMunn's mother allegedly ingested the drug Diethylstilbestrol (DES) in Massachusetts while pregnant with Judith.
- Judith MacMunn later suffered from uterine and cervical malformations and infertility, which she attributes to her mother's ingestion of DES.
- The plaintiffs, Judith MacMunn and her husband Michael MacMunn, both reside in Massachusetts.
- Judith MacMunn's mother, a principal witness regarding the exposure to DES, also resides in Massachusetts.
- All medical records regarding the mother's pregnancy and Judith MacMunn's subsequent injuries are located in Massachusetts.
- Any potential witnesses, such as prescribing physicians or pharmacists involved in the 1962 events, would likely be located in Massachusetts.
Procedural Posture:
- Judith and Michael MacMunn filed a complaint against Eli Lilly & Co. in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, a court of first instance.
- Eli Lilly & Co., the defendant, removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia based on diversity of citizenship.
- After an initial status hearing, the defendant, Eli Lilly & Co., filed a motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interest of justice warrant transferring a products liability case from the District of Columbia to the District of Massachusetts, where the plaintiffs reside, the alleged injury occurred, and nearly all witnesses and sources of proof are located?
Opinions:
Majority - Urbina, J.
Yes. A transfer of venue is warranted because the private and public interest factors overwhelmingly favor litigating the case in Massachusetts. While a plaintiff's choice of forum is typically given strong deference, that deference is significantly weakened here because the plaintiffs do not reside in the District of Columbia and the operative facts of the case have no meaningful ties to this district. The court reasoned that the private interests favor transfer because the claim arose in Massachusetts, and the convenience of non-party witnesses and access to medical records all point to Massachusetts. The public interests also favor transfer because Massachusetts has a strong local interest in redressing injuries to its citizens, and its courts are more familiar with the Massachusetts law that is likely to govern the case. The court also noted that the defendant's motion was filed early in the litigation process, before substantial discovery, which further supports the transfer.
Analysis:
This case provides a clear application of the balancing test for a motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). It emphasizes that the strong presumption in favor of a plaintiff's choice of forum is not absolute and can be overcome by a strong showing that another venue is far more convenient and appropriate. The decision is significant for demonstrating how courts will heavily discount a plaintiff's choice when it appears to be a form of forum shopping, with little to no connection to the underlying dispute. It reinforces the principle that controversies should be resolved in the locality where they arose and where the affected parties, witnesses, and evidence are concentrated.
Unlock the full brief for MacMunn v. Eli Lilly Co.