In re Eyewear Antitrust Litigation

Background

The consolidated cases are putative nationwide class actions brought by consumers who allege that defendants engaged in anticompetitive conduct that caused consumers to overpay for eyewear. The defendants manufacture and distribute eyeglasses, sunglasses, and corrective lenses. The opinion states that none of the defendants are based in Minnesota; their principal places of business are in Europe and various U.S. states. The defendants presented evidence that EssilorLuxottica USA Inc. has its principal place of business in New York and that certain defendants’ U.S.-based marketing, strategy, and retail sales operations are located there.

The eight consolidated actions include ten named plaintiffs and putative class representatives. Six are Minnesota residents, two are California residents, and two are New York residents. Nine plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of putative nationwide classes of direct purchasers, while Pamela Ringgold seeks to represent a nationwide class of indirect purchasers.

The defendants moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the proceedings from the District of Minnesota to the Southern District of New York. The parties agreed that the Southern District of New York was a district in which the action could have been brought.

Legal Standard

Section 1404(a) allows a federal district court to transfer a civil action to another district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice. The party requesting transfer bears the burden of showing that the relevant factors strongly favor the proposed district. The court considered the convenience of the parties, the convenience of witnesses, access to records and documents, the location of the conduct at issue, the plaintiff’s choice of forum, judicial economy, and other interests-of-justice factors.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that the convenience-of-the-parties factor favored transfer overall. Minnesota was convenient for the six Minnesota plaintiffs, but it was inconvenient for the four plaintiffs who lived in California or New York. New York was more convenient for two named plaintiffs, at least some U.S.-based defendants, and all defendants based in Europe. The court also found that there was no indication that a significant volume of physical documents would be in Minnesota, while some defendants’ relevant operations and documents were located in New York. The court noted that much of the discovery would likely be electronic.

The court gave the greatest weight to the convenience of non-party witnesses. The defendants identified 34 non-party eyewear manufacturers and intellectual-property licensors that allegedly entered relevant agreements with the defendants. The court found that these entities were likely to have material and important information about the agreements. None could be compelled to provide live trial testimony in the District of Minnesota. By contrast, 18 could potentially be compelled by subpoena to appear in the Southern District of New York because they were located in New York or within the applicable 100-mile subpoena range. The European entities would not be subject to New York’s subpoena power, but the court found New York a more convenient location for them to travel to if they voluntarily testified.

The court also concluded that the alleged unlawful conduct had a stronger connection to New York than to Minnesota. It focused on where the alleged agreements and conduct occurred rather than only where plaintiffs felt the effects. The court found no allegations that the agreements were negotiated or executed in Minnesota, while several alleged co-conspirators were located in the New York area. It did not find that New York was certainly the sole location of the operative facts, but concluded that the allegations supported treating New York as a more appropriate forum than Minnesota.

The court gave the plaintiffs’ choice of Minnesota relatively little deference. It reasoned that these were putative nationwide class actions, that the alleged unlawful conduct had no particular connection to Minnesota, and that some plaintiffs had chosen Minnesota even though it was not convenient for them. The court also noted that the coordinated dismissal of certain New York-area entities from an earlier complaint in response to efforts to centralize the litigation in New York raised concerns that the Minnesota forum was not selected entirely for convenience. The court did not find that plaintiffs had acted to harass defendants.

Judicial economy did not weigh against transfer because the cases remained in their early stages. The court had considered the venue motion, a magistrate judge had consolidated the cases, and interim co-lead counsel had been appointed, but no consolidated amended complaint had been filed. The court concluded that transfer would not waste judicial resources or the parties’ efforts. Other factors, including conflicts of law and comparative litigation costs, were largely neutral. The court also found that the inability to compel important non-party witnesses to testify live in Minnesota would create an obstacle to a fair trial, favoring transfer.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Menendez granted the defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue, Doc. 79. The Clerk of Court was directed to transfer the action to the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The order decided where the litigation should proceed and did not decide the underlying antitrust claims.