United HealthCare Services, Inc. v. Celgene Corporation

Background

United HealthCare Services, Inc. (referred to in the opinion as UHS) sued Celgene Corporation over Celgene’s sales of the cancer medicines Thalomid and Revlimid. UHS alleged that Celgene interfered with efforts to develop or obtain approval for generic versions of the drugs, maintained a monopoly, and charged unlawfully high prices.

UHS asserted a claim under section 2 of the Sherman Act, a Minnesota antitrust claim, antitrust and consumer-protection claims under various states’ laws, a Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act claim, and an unjust-enrichment claim. UHS sought recovery for charges it and its insureds incurred in paying for the drugs. The opinion states that UHS is a Minnesota corporation and that Celgene is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New Jersey.

Celgene moved either to dismiss the case or to transfer it to the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Celgene argued that New Jersey was the better forum because judges there had extensive experience with similar cases and because a nearly identical case brought by Humana was pending there. UHS argued that its choice of forum should be respected and that judicial efficiency, party convenience, and witness convenience did not favor transfer.

Transfer Analysis

Section 1404(a) permits a federal district court to transfer a civil action to another district where it could have been brought when transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. The parties agreed that the case could have been brought in the District of New Jersey.

The court found that the interests of justice strongly favored transfer, primarily because of judicial economy. It determined that the Humana case and this case were substantially similar: both were brought by health insurers against Celgene, involved the same core antitrust, state consumer-protection, and unjust-enrichment theories, and sought the same relief. Keeping both cases in separate courts could require multiple judges to consider the same questions, records, briefs, and issues.

The court also relied on the District of New Jersey’s experience with related litigation concerning Celgene’s alleged monopolistic conduct. It was not persuaded that the Minnesota-law claims required keeping the case in Minnesota because the principal claim arose under federal law, Minnesota law was already at issue in the Humana case, and the New Jersey court could apply Minnesota law.

The court recognized that UHS’s choice of forum deserved some deference but gave that choice less weight because the complaint centered on conduct that occurred in New Jersey. The court found that the convenience of the parties and witnesses also favored transfer, although less strongly. It reasoned that the core alleged conduct occurred in New Jersey, meaning that more key witnesses were likely to be located there, while acknowledging that some UHS witnesses would be based in Minnesota. The court also stated that transferring the case would inconvenience UHS but that UHS had the financial ability to litigate in either forum.

Disposition

The court granted Celgene’s motion to transfer venue and directed the clerk to transfer the case to the District of New Jersey. It left the question of whether to consolidate this case with the Humana case to the transferee court.

The court denied Celgene’s motion to dismiss without prejudice so that the motion could be considered by the District of New Jersey. The order did not decide the merits of UHS’s antitrust or related claims.