Craig v. American Tuna Inc.

Background

Jeffrey Craig alleged that American Tuna, Inc. falsely labeled and marketed its canned tuna. Craig bought the tuna at Whole Foods locations in New York and alleged that consumers paid a premium because they believed the tuna was top-quality, locally sourced, caught in American waters, and processed in American factories. He alleged that the tuna was not caught in America and that much of it was canned in other countries. His amended complaint sought to represent a nationwide consumer class and a New York subclass. The claims included breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and alleged violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350.

American Tuna moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) to transfer the case to the Southern District of California. It also moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss certain claims. The amended complaint added World Wise Foods, Ltd. as a defendant. The opinion states that World Wise had not been served, objected to jurisdiction in New York, and consented to jurisdiction in the Southern District of California.

Transfer Standard

A transfer under § 1404(a) is allowed when the case could have been brought in the proposed district and transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. The court considered the plaintiff’s forum choice, witness convenience, the location of documents and other evidence, party convenience, the location of important events, the ability to compel unwilling witnesses, the parties’ relative resources, familiarity with the governing law, judicial economy, and the interests of justice. American Tuna had to show by clear and convincing evidence that transfer was justified.

Court’s Analysis

The court first found that the case could have been brought in the Southern District of California. American Tuna was headquartered in San Diego, and World Wise consented to jurisdiction there.

The court then found that the transfer factors, taken together, favored California:

- Craig’s choice of forum: The court gave that choice minimal weight because Craig lived in New Jersey, sought to represent a nationwide class, and had only purchased the product in New York. Craig’s counsel acknowledged that he could have bought the tuna in New Jersey. - Witness convenience: The court found that none of the identified witnesses were in New York. American Tuna’s employees and witnesses concerning labeling, marketing, website content, fishing records, canning, and pricing were primarily in San Diego, elsewhere on the West Coast, the United Kingdom, or Texas. This factor favored transfer. - Documents and evidence: American Tuna’s records were in San Diego, and records from fishing vessels and other sources were located in California, Washington, and Oregon. The court found this factor slightly favored transfer. - Location of important events: The court found that the key events—corporate decisions about advertising and labeling, tuna sourcing, and pricing—occurred in San Diego or elsewhere on the West Coast. The only relevant New York event identified was Craig’s purchase of the tuna there. This factor favored transfer. - Ability to compel witnesses: The court found that California would have subpoena power over some identified nonparty witnesses and records, while the New York court could not compel the identified witnesses because they were more than 100 miles away. This factor slightly favored transfer. - Convenience of the parties: No party resided in New York. Craig lived in New Jersey, American Tuna was in San Diego, and World Wise was a United Kingdom company. The court found that San Diego had more connections to the parties, although traveling to New York might be easier for Craig. - Relative resources: The court treated this factor as neutral because neither side provided documentation showing that litigating in one district would create financial hardship. - Familiarity with governing law and judicial economy: The court found both factors neutral. The case involved laws from multiple states, and the submissions did not analyze docket congestion.

The court concluded that American Tuna had met its burden. It found that San Diego had substantially stronger connections to the key facts and witnesses and that transfer would reduce travel costs for some witnesses and be more convenient for more of them.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to transfer the action to the Southern District of California and directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the case in its entirety. Because the case was being transferred, the court deferred the part of the motion seeking dismissal of certain claims and did not rule on it. The court noted that Craig agreed to withdraw his unjust-enrichment claim and his claim under the Magnuson-Moss Act, but the opinion does not state that the court entered an order dismissing or withdrawing those claims.

Judge and Opinion Date

The opinion was signed by Katharine H. Parker, United States Magistrate Judge, on April 1, 2022.