BRIAN CARRICO, et al. v. UPONOR, INC., et al.

Background

This is a putative class action (a lawsuit brought on behalf of a proposed group of similarly situated people, which must be certified by the court before proceeding as a class) arising from alleged defects in polyethylene tubing known as PEX piping. The four named plaintiffs — Brian Carrico, Kacie Carrico, Don Gatlin, and Dora Gatlin — are all Tennessee residents who allege that defective PEX piping designed and manufactured by the defendants caused damage to their homes and property.

The three named defendants are Uponor, Inc. (an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Minnesota), Uponor North America, Inc. (a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Minnesota), and Uponor Corporation (a Finnish corporation with its principal place of business in Finland). Plaintiffs also named unidentified "Does 1 through 100," but the court's analysis addressed only the three named defendants.

The operative complaint asserts six counts on behalf of plaintiffs and a proposed class of Tennessee property owners with Uponor PEX installed as part of a potable water plumbing system: (1) strict product liability based on manufacturing and design defects; (2) strict product liability based on design defects; (3) negligence; (4) fraudulent concealment; (5) negligent misrepresentation; and (6) violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The Motion to Transfer

Although plaintiffs originally filed in the Middle District of Tennessee, they moved to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows a federal court to transfer a civil action to another district where it could have been brought, for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.

Plaintiffs argued that (1) the case could have originally been filed in Minnesota; (2) two related class actions — Fitzpatrick v. Uponor, Inc. and Harmon v. Uponor, Inc. — were already pending in the District of Minnesota; and (3) the private and public interest factors favored transfer. Shortly after the motion was filed, Fitzpatrick and Harmon were consolidated into a single action (the "Consolidated Action") in the District of Minnesota, and the parties in that consolidated case filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on June 17, 2026.

Defendants opposed transfer, arguing that the most important evidence is in Tennessee, that Tennessee has a strong interest in adjudicating Tennessee claims, that the court's prior investment in case management weighs against transfer, that plaintiffs already chose Tennessee as their forum, that the case's center of gravity is in Tennessee, and that non-party witnesses and physical evidence are in Tennessee.

Legal Standard

Under § 1404(a), the court first asks whether the case could have been brought in the proposed transferee district. If so, the court then balances private interest factors — including witness convenience, party convenience, ease of access to evidence, availability of process to compel witnesses, cost of obtaining willing witnesses, and practical trial management considerations — against public interest factors, including enforceability of any judgment, docket congestion, local interest in the controversy, public policy of the competing forums, and the trial judge's familiarity with applicable state law. Courts also consider the locus of operative facts (where the key events occurred, sometimes called the "center of gravity") and the plaintiff's choice of forum. No single factor is dispositive; the balance must "strongly" favor the transferee district.

Threshold Question: Could the Case Have Been Brought in Minnesota?

The court found — and defendants did not contest — that the case could originally have been filed in the District of Minnesota. Two defendants have their principal places of business there, significant events underlying the claims (including design and manufacturing of the PEX) occurred there, and defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in that district.

Private Interest Factors

Convenience of Witnesses

The court identified this as "perhaps the most important factor." Plaintiffs identified eight named potential witnesses — employees of defendants — who are located (or likely located) in Minnesota. Defendants' discovery responses confirmed those witnesses have knowledge of PEX design, manufacture, and testing. Defendants, by contrast, named only one non-party witness (Hannah Custom Homes, LLC) purportedly in Tennessee but offered no evidence of that witness's location. Defendants also referred generally to plumbers, contractors, and inspectors in Tennessee but did not name them, describe what evidence they would provide, or offer proof of their locations. The court found this factor weighs in favor of transfer.

Convenience of the Parties

All four plaintiffs are Tennessee residents; two of three defendants have their principal places of business in Minnesota. Both parties agreed this factor is neutral, and the court accepted that characterization. The court noted, in a footnote, an argument it declined to make on its own: that Tennessee-based plaintiffs seeking transfer have effectively consented to the inconvenience of a Minnesota forum, which could have weighed the factor in favor of transfer — but because plaintiffs did not make that argument, the court declined to raise it on their behalf.

Locus of Operative Facts / Center of Gravity

The court defined this as the location of the majority or most significant relevant events. In product liability cases, courts regularly locate the center of gravity where the product was researched, designed, tested, and manufactured — not where the harm was later felt. Defendant Uponor, Inc.'s own discovery response confirmed the PEX was manufactured in Minnesota. Defendants did not contest that it was also designed, marketed, sold, and distributed from Minnesota. The court rejected defendants' argument that the center of gravity is in Tennessee simply because the damage occurred there, or because Tennessee venue is proper under the general federal venue statute. The court found this factor weighs in favor of transfer.

Location of Sources of Proof

The court treated documentary and electronic records as effectively neutral, consistent with modern technology making document production feasible regardless of location. As to physical evidence, both sides agreed that relevant physical evidence exists in both states (plaintiffs' removed PEX in Tennessee; PEX samples defendants conceded are in Minnesota). Because physical evidence is split between both districts, the court found this factor neutral.

Plaintiffs' Choice of Forum

The court acknowledged the unusual posture: plaintiffs themselves sought to transfer away from their own original choice of forum. The right to seek transfer is available to plaintiffs as well as defendants. In class actions, a plaintiff's choice of forum generally receives less deference than in individual suits. Because plaintiffs' proposed transferee forum (Minnesota) has a genuine connection to the litigation and two defendants have their principal places of business there, the court gave that proposed forum some weight as plaintiffs' choice. The court found this factor weighs in favor of transfer.

Public Interest Factors

Efficient Administration of Justice / Avoiding Duplicative Rulings

Two related putative class actions against Uponor, Inc. involving similar allegations of PEX design and manufacturing defects were consolidated into a single action pending in the District of Minnesota. That Consolidated Action has similar factual allegations and overlapping claims. The court found it serves judicial efficiency and avoids inconsistent rulings to transfer this case to the same court handling the Consolidated Action, where consolidation is possible. The court rejected defendants' argument that the court's prior investment in this case (multiple amended complaints, discovery disputes, and dispositive motions) was a reason to deny transfer, noting that past judicial resources devoted to the case do not mean future resources would be most efficiently spent here. The court found this factor weighs in favor of transfer.

Local Interest in Deciding Local Controversies

The court acknowledged that Tennessee residents were allegedly injured in Tennessee by a product installed in Tennessee, giving Tennessee a local interest in the case. However, it also noted that many of the injurious events — particularly the manufacture of the PEX — occurred in Minnesota, and that Minnesota has its own local interest because two defendants are headquartered there. Finding competing local interests, the court concluded this factor is neutral.

Familiarity of the Trial Judge with Applicable State Law

The parties agreed Tennessee law governs the case. A Tennessee-based judge would naturally be more familiar with Tennessee law than judges in Minnesota. However, the court noted that many of the claims (negligence, product liability) rest on "basic tort law" that any federal court can competently apply, and that the TCPA is the type of consumer protection statute federal courts routinely handle. The court found this factor weighs slightly against transfer — the only factor to do so.

Disposition

Balancing all factors, the court concluded that transfer to the District of Minnesota is warranted. Factors favoring transfer (witness convenience, center of gravity, plaintiffs' proposed forum, and judicial efficiency) carry more weight in the transfer analysis and outnumber the neutral factors (party convenience, sources of proof, local interest) and the single factor slightly disfavoring transfer (familiarity with state law). The court granted the motion to transfer.

The three pending discovery-related motions (Doc. Nos. 129, 138, 147) were denied as moot, explicitly without prejudice, so that the receiving court in Minnesota may assess discovery needs afresh, particularly in light of potential consolidation with the Consolidated Action. The pending motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 125) was left pending and will carry over with the transferred case.