Ickes v. AMC Networks Inc.

Background

Trisha Ickes sued AMC Networks Inc., referred to in the opinion as “AMC+,” alleging violations of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act and California law. The complaint alleged that AMC+ used Meta’s “Meta Pixel” on its website to share subscribers’ Facebook IDs and information about the videos they requested or obtained. It also alleged that AMC+ kept subscribers’ personal information longer than necessary. Ickes sought to represent a nationwide class for the federal claim and a California class for the state-law claims.

AMC+ is described in the opinion as a Delaware corporation with its principal executive office in New York, New York. Consumers who use its streaming services must create accounts and provide personal information. The opinion states that AMC+’s website did not tell consumers about its use of the Meta Pixel or its sharing of personal information and video-content choices with Meta.

Related New York Proceedings

Before Ickes filed this case, another putative class action concerning AMC+’s use of the Meta Pixel and retention of subscriber information was filed in the Southern District of New York. That earlier action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On the same day, a new action was filed in that district involving two of the earlier plaintiffs and a new named plaintiff. The new action was virtually identical to the earlier one and remained pending before the same judge. AMC+ had filed a motion to compel arbitration in that pending case.

First-to-File Rule

AMC+ moved under the first-to-file rule and 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The first-to-file rule gives a federal court discretion to transfer, pause, or dismiss a case when a similar case was filed earlier in another federal district. Courts consider the timing of the filings, the similarity of the parties, and the similarity of the issues.

The court treated the earlier dismissed action and the later pending New York action as one proceeding for purposes of the rule. It reasoned that the later case was pending before the same judge, was nearly identical except for the substitution of one plaintiff, and was filed on the same day the earlier case was dismissed. The court therefore treated the New York action as the first-filed case.

The court found substantial similarity between the parties. AMC+ was the same defendant, and the plaintiffs in both cases were AMC+ subscribers who accessed video content through the AMC+ website and had Facebook accounts. The nationwide putative classes overlapped almost completely. The different state-law subclasses did not defeat the substantial similarity because the federal nationwide classes were the same.

The court also found substantial similarity between the issues. Both cases concerned AMC+’s use of the Meta Pixel, its disclosure of consumer information to Meta, and its retention of that information. Both involved AMC+’s position that the claims were subject to arbitration. The court stated that, if the claims were not sent to arbitration, both cases would raise common questions about nationwide class certification and whether AMC+ violated the Video Privacy Protection Act. Differences in the damages sought did not eliminate the substantial overlap.

The court concluded that transfer under the first-to-file rule would promote judicial efficiency, consistency, and coordination between courts. It granted AMC+’s motion to transfer on that basis.

Transfer Under Section 1404(a)

Section 1404(a) permits a federal district court to transfer a civil case to another district where it could have been brought when the transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the interests of justice. The parties did not dispute that venue was proper in the Northern District of California or that the case could have been brought in the Southern District of New York.

The court found that the relevant factors, considered together, favored transfer. It gave some, but not much, weight to Ickes’s choice of forum because she sought to represent a class. Although California was more convenient for Ickes personally, the court anticipated that much of the witness testimony would concern AMC+’s decisions and policies. Because AMC+ was headquartered in New York, the court found that witness convenience favored transfer. Access to evidence was neutral because most, if not all, of the evidence was electronically available.

The court found that the factor concerning familiarity with governing law was largely neutral. Although the Northern District of California was familiar with California law, the court stated that federal courts could apply California law and that the related New York case already involved state-law claims arising from the same facts. The court did not consider local interest or court congestion because neither party discussed those factors.

Disposition

The court GRANTED AMC Networks’ motion to transfer and TRANSFERRED the case to the Southern District of New York. The order did not decide whether AMC+ violated the Video Privacy Protection Act or California law, whether the proposed classes should be certified, or whether the claims were subject to arbitration.