Li-Bachar v. Johnson & Johnson

Background

Yumei Li-Bachar, a Michigan resident, sued Johnson & Johnson and its wholly owned subsidiary, Ethicon, Inc. The defendants manufacture and sell pelvic mesh products. Li-Bachar was implanted with Ethicon's Gynecare TVT transvaginal mesh to treat stress urinary incontinence, and she later underwent revision surgery in Rochester, Minnesota, involving removal of the mesh from her urethra. Her complaint alleged negligence, strict-liability failure to warn, and fraudulent concealment.

The defendants moved to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, in Lansing. They also moved to dismiss part of the complaint. Li-Bachar opposed the transfer.

Transfer Analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a court may transfer a civil action to another federal district when the action could have been brought there and the transfer would be more convenient for the parties and witnesses and serve the interests of justice.

The court first held that venue was proper in the Western District of Michigan. Although the complaint stated that Li-Bachar was a Michigan resident and identified the implantation and revision surgery as occurring elsewhere, the court considered a plaintiff profile form from related products-liability litigation. The form listed a Lansing, Michigan address and identified several effects attributed to the device. The court concluded that the record established that Li-Bachar resided in Michigan when she suffered the effects of the injury underlying this action, making Michigan a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred.

The court then evaluated the transfer factors:

- Convenience of the parties: The court found that Michigan would be more convenient and less expensive for Li-Bachar and likely also more convenient for the defendants than Minnesota. This factor favored transfer. - Convenience of the witnesses: The physician who performed Li-Bachar's revision surgery likely lived in Minnesota, but the treating providers identified by the defendants had addresses in Michigan or Ontario. The court concluded that several witnesses would find Michigan more convenient, while only one identified witness would find Minnesota more convenient. This factor favored transfer. - Interests of justice: Judicial economy, Li-Bachar's choice of forum, and obstacles to a fair trial were neutral. The court noted that the case had a connection to Minnesota because of the revision surgery, that it had not decided which state's law applied, and that Minnesota courts were capable of deciding the legal issues.

Because witness convenience is especially important and the overall balance strongly favored transfer, the court concluded that the defendants met their burden.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants' motion to transfer venue. It directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, in Lansing.

The court denied without prejudice the defendants' motion to dismiss. Because the case was being transferred, the court did not decide the dismissal issues or the merits of Li-Bachar's claims.