In re Eyewear Antitrust Litigation

Background

The consolidated cases are proposed nationwide class actions alleging that the defendants—manufacturers and distributors of eyeglasses, sunglasses, and corrective lenses—used acquisitions, exclusive licensing and distribution agreements, and other conduct to limit competition and fix prices. The cases include ten named plaintiffs and proposed class representatives from Minnesota, California, and New York. Nine plaintiffs seek to represent people who directly purchased eyewear from the defendants’ brands or retail outlets; one plaintiff seeks to represent indirect purchasers.

The cases were initially filed in several federal districts and were later coordinated in the District of Minnesota. The court consolidated eight related actions there on March 6, 2024. The defendants then moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a statute allowing a federal court to transfer a civil action to another proper federal district when convenience and fairness strongly favor the move.

None of the defendants were based in Minnesota. The court noted evidence that EssilorLuxottica USA Inc. had its principal place of business in New York and that several defendants’ primary U.S. marketing, strategy, and retail-sales operations were in New York. Thirty-four non-party eyewear manufacturers and intellectual-property licensors were identified as potential participants in the alleged agreements; nineteen were in the New York area and fifteen were in Europe.

Legal standard

The defendants had the burden to show that the relevant factors strongly favored transfer. The court considered the convenience of the parties, the convenience of witnesses, access to documents, the location of the conduct at issue, applicable law, the plaintiffs’ choice of forum, judicial economy, and other interests of justice.

Court’s analysis

The convenience-of-the-parties factor favored transfer overall. Minnesota was more convenient for the six Minnesota plaintiffs, but four plaintiffs lived in California or New York. New York was more convenient for two named plaintiffs, at least some U.S.-based defendants, and all defendants based in Europe. The court also found that moving the case would not greatly increase the inconvenience for the Minnesota and California plaintiffs because most depositions and motion proceedings would not require them to travel, although they might need to travel for mediation or trial.

The convenience-of-witnesses factor strongly favored transfer. The court found that the identified non-party licensors and manufacturers were likely to have material and important information about the licensing and sales agreements. None could be compelled to provide live trial testimony in Minnesota. By contrast, eighteen could potentially be compelled to testify in the Southern District of New York because they were located in New York or within the 100-mile subpoena range. The European witnesses were not within either court’s subpoena power, but the court found New York a more convenient location for them if they voluntarily traveled to testify.

The location-of-conduct factor also favored New York, although the court did not find that New York was definitively the only relevant location. The plaintiffs identified no allegations that the challenged agreements were negotiated or executed in Minnesota. The court reasoned that the alleged conduct, rather than merely the location where plaintiffs experienced its effects, was most important, and noted that several alleged co-conspirators were located in the New York area.

The court gave the plaintiffs’ choice of Minnesota relatively little deference. The cases were proposed nationwide class actions, the alleged unlawful conduct had no particular connection to Minnesota, and some plaintiffs had chosen Minnesota even though they lived elsewhere. The court found no evidence conclusively showing harassment or an attempt to obtain favorable law, but stated that the coordinated filing and dismissal history raised some concern about whether convenience was the plaintiffs’ primary reason for selecting Minnesota.

Judicial-economy considerations did not oppose transfer. The cases were still in their early stages: the court had heard only the transfer motion, the cases had been consolidated, interim co-lead counsel had been appointed, and no consolidated amended complaint had been filed. The court found that transfer would not waste significant judicial or party resources. Other factors, including conflicting laws and local-law issues, were largely neutral. The inability to compel several important non-party witnesses to testify live in Minnesota also created a potential obstacle to a fair trial and favored transfer.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue. It directed the clerk to transfer the action to the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The order did not decide the merits of the antitrust allegations.

Note on the ruling

This was a venue decision. The court decided that the Southern District of New York was the more convenient and fair forum; it did not determine whether the defendants violated antitrust law or whether the proposed classes should be certified.