McCarthy v. Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.

Background

Lisa McCarthy and 26 other plaintiffs brought this consumer antitrust action against dozens of banks and financial institutions. Plaintiffs allege that defendants participated in a price-fixing conspiracy involving the USD ICE LIBOR rate, an interest-rate benchmark used as the base rate for some variable-interest loans and credit cards. Plaintiffs say they either paid the allegedly fixed rate or faced substantial harm from continued use of that rate.

Motion to Transfer

A group of served U.S.-based defendants moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a statute allowing a federal court to transfer a civil case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. They sought transfer to the Southern District of New York, pointing to other LIBOR-related cases there and arguing that transfer would promote judicial efficiency.

The court denied the transfer motion. It found that this case was not closely related enough to the Southern District of New York cases to support transfer. The court noted that the claims here focused on 2016 through 2020, after Intercontinental Exchange Benchmark Administration Limited took over management of LIBOR from the British Bankers’ Association and the benchmark changed from BBA LIBOR to ICE LIBOR. The court also noted that another ICE LIBOR case identified by defendants was on appeal, leaving the Southern District of New York without jurisdiction over that closed case.

The court further found that defendants had not shown that the transfer factors favored New York. Those factors included the parties’ and witnesses’ convenience, the connection between the chosen forum and the claims, litigation costs, the ability to require nonparty witnesses to attend, and access to evidence. The court observed that discovery can often be conducted without much regard to where records or witnesses are located, that the challenged conduct was alleged to have occurred throughout the United States including in the Northern District of California, and that at least one plaintiff lived in that district. Defendants also did not show with sufficient certainty why a trial would be more convenient in New York than in San Francisco. The court therefore concluded that defendants had not carried their burden of showing that the Southern District of New York was the more appropriate forum. The transfer request was denied.

Administrative Motion Concerning Injunction Application

Defendants also filed an administrative motion responding to plaintiffs’ application for an order requiring defendants to explain why an injunction should not issue. Defendants alternatively asked the court to strike the application as duplicative and to allow more time to respond.

The court denied the request to strike the application, accepting plaintiffs’ representation that it was based on new evidence. The court granted defendants’ request for more time to respond. Defendants’ response was due July 22, 2021, and plaintiffs could file a reply by August 19, 2021. The court scheduled a September 9, 2021 hearing on the new injunction motion and said it would consider that motion together with plaintiffs’ earlier injunction motion. The court stated that it would later advise whether the hearing would occur in person or remotely. Overall, defendants’ administrative request was granted in part.