Brown v. WebMD LLC

Background

Mary Brown, Melanie Lynne Rhine, and Denise Bowen sued WebMD LLC in a proposed class action. The plaintiffs allege that WebMD’s website used third-party tools containing cookies and related tracking technologies to allow third parties to collect user data, even after the plaintiffs rejected unnecessary cookies through the website’s privacy settings.

The complaint proposes a class of people who browsed WebMD’s website in California after rejecting unnecessary cookies. It asserts six causes of action: invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, two claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

WebMD moved to transfer the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), or alternatively to dismiss it. WebMD proposed transferring the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, where WebMD is headquartered and subject to general jurisdiction. The plaintiffs did not dispute that the case could have been filed there.

Transfer analysis

Section 1404(a) allows a federal court to transfer a civil case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court considered the relevant private- and public-interest factors.

The court found that the governing-law factor weighed slightly against transfer because the claims arise under California law, although federal courts can apply another state’s law. The plaintiffs’ choice of the Northern District of California also weighed moderately against transfer because the named plaintiffs are California residents, two live in the Northern District, and the proposed class is limited to California residents as represented by the plaintiffs.

The contacts between the claims and the forums weighed heavily in favor of transfer. The court concluded that the alleged decisions and conduct originated in New Jersey, where WebMD’s headquarters and relevant decision-making were located. The plaintiffs’ alleged injuries occurred in California, but that did not outweigh the New Jersey-centered conduct.

The witness-access factor favored transfer because WebMD identified employee witnesses involved in creating and operating the website and in overseeing those functions who are located in New Jersey. The plaintiffs did not specifically identify nonparty witnesses who would be inconvenienced by transfer. Access to documents slightly favored transfer because the court found that most important documentary evidence was in New Jersey, while recognizing that electronic discovery reduced the importance of that factor. The likely litigation costs were neutral, and New Jersey’s local interest in conduct originating there weighed more heavily in favor of transfer than California’s interest in protecting its consumers.

Disposition

The court held that WebMD met its burden of showing that the convenience and interest-of-justice factors favored transfer. It granted WebMD’s motion to transfer venue and ordered the case transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The court declined to decide WebMD’s motion to dismiss. It terminated that motion without prejudice to refiling in the proper forum, and directed the clerk to transfer the case and close the California case. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.