Cooper v. Curallux LLC

Background

Janice Cooper filed a putative class action against Curallux LLC. The amended complaint asserts claims under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law, and claims for breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. Cooper alleges that she purchased one of Curallux’s laser hair-regrowth products in March 2018, relied on statements that the product was “without side effects” and “physician recommended,” and experienced several side effects.

Cooper seeks to represent a nationwide class, or alternatively a California class, of people who purchased the products for personal use. Curallux is a Florida limited liability company headquartered in Miami, Florida. It moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the federal statute allowing a court to transfer a case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice, to transfer the case to the Southern District of Florida.

Legal standard

The court explained that Curallux, as the party requesting transfer, had to make a strong showing that the Northern District of California was inconvenient. The court considered whether the case could have been brought in Florida and then weighed factors including the parties’ and witnesses’ convenience, access to evidence, familiarity with applicable law, local interests, possible consolidation, court congestion, and time to trial. No single factor was decisive.

Analysis

The court agreed that the action could have been brought in the Southern District of Florida because Curallux is headquartered there and could be sued there.

The court gave Cooper’s choice of California some weight because she resides in the Northern District, allegedly bought the product online while in California, and asserted claims under California law. The court reduced that weight because Cooper sought to represent a nationwide class and the parties had not shown where potential class members were located.

The parties’ convenience factor favored Florida for Curallux because its business operations are located there, but litigating in Florida would be inconvenient for Cooper to the extent she participated in the case. The court found the witness factor neutral. Curallux identified its employees, eight physicians, and possible Federal Trade Commission witnesses, but did not identify specific witnesses, explain the importance of their testimony, or show how many witnesses would be involved. The court also found no clear advantage for Florida concerning documentary evidence because Curallux did not show that relevant documents were unavailable electronically or that they were located only in Florida.

Because Cooper’s claims arise under California law, the court found that familiarity with applicable law weighed slightly against transfer. No consolidation issue was identified. The local-interest factor favored Florida because Curallux is located there and decisions involving the products’ marketing, testing, and the Federal Trade Commission investigation occurred there. Curallux also submitted information suggesting that the Southern District of Florida had fewer civil cases assigned to more judges, but it did not provide the median time from filing to disposition or trial, so the court did not treat that information as sufficient to establish a transfer advantage.

Disposition

The court concluded that some factors favored transfer and some weighed against it. It found the witness-convenience factor especially important and determined that Curallux had not carried its burden to show that Florida was more convenient. The court therefore denied the motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of Florida. This order did not decide the merits of Cooper’s claims or class-certification request.