Carroll v. La-Z Boy Incorporated

Background

Keith Carroll alleges that La-Z Boy Incorporated violated the Video Privacy Protection Act by using a Facebook Tracking Pixel that sent personally identifying information to Facebook when individuals watched videos on La-Z Boy’s website. Carroll also seeks to represent a nationwide class. La-Z Boy moved to transfer the case from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of Michigan. Carroll opposed the motion and argued alternatively that the Eastern District of Virginia would be the more appropriate venue.

Transfer standard

The court explained that a federal district court may transfer a civil case, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice, to a district where the case could originally have been filed. The court applies a two-part test: whether the proposed receiving court could have heard the case initially, and whether convenience and the interest of justice favor transfer. Carroll did not dispute that the case could have been brought in Michigan, and La-Z Boy did not dispute that it could have been brought in Virginia.

The court considered the plaintiff’s choice of forum, convenience of the parties and witnesses, access to evidence, local interest, familiarity with the applicable law, and the relative congestion and trial timing of the courts. It noted that a plaintiff’s chosen forum generally receives strong deference, but found that Carroll’s choice of the Northern District of California deserved only limited weight because he resides in Virginia and said that relevant conduct occurred there.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the party-witness factor favored Michigan. La-Z Boy stated that witnesses with knowledge of its transaction with Facebook worked at its Michigan headquarters. The court gave less weight to Carroll’s concern that traveling to Michigan would be difficult because he is blind and lacks a support system there. It noted that the support system he identified in California was his counsel, who was not located in the Northern District and could provide support elsewhere.

The record did not identify necessary non-party witnesses, including possible witnesses from Facebook’s parent company, Meta, Inc., so that factor was neutral. The court also found access to evidence neutral because technological advances generally reduce the burden of transporting documents. Because the claim involved alleged federal-law violations, the court found the applicable-law factor neutral.

The court concluded that California had minimal local interest because Carroll had not sued Meta, despite seeking to represent a nationwide class. It recognized Michigan’s interest in regulating corporations located there and Virginia’s interest in protecting its residents, but found that the local-interest factor favored transfer to Michigan. The court also compared court congestion and trial timing, noting differences among the three districts.

Disposition

After considering all the factors, Judge Jeffrey White concluded that they favored transferring the case to the Eastern District of Michigan. The court granted La-Z Boy’s motion, directed the clerk to transfer the matter to that court, and ordered the Northern District of California file closed. The opinion decided venue and did not resolve whether La-Z Boy violated the Video Privacy Protection Act.