UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
- Rearden
- 1:23-cv-10030
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Judge Rearden granted transfer to Pennsylvania and vacated deadlines.
The plaintiffs and defendants in this action, including Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.; the case will proceed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania rather than the Southern District of New York.
What happened
Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. asked the Southern District of New York to transfer this case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania so it could be handled by Judge Mark A. Kearney, who had presided over a nearly identical case involving the same defendants and alleged conduct.
The plaintiffs said New York was an appropriate venue and that the equities did not favor transfer, but they did not oppose transferring the case to Judge Kearney. They said they would oppose transfer if it went to a different judge in Pennsylvania.
Judge Rearden granted Takeda’s motion, vacated all pending deadlines, and directed the Clerk to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court explained that it could not assign the case to a particular judge, although the parties could ask the Pennsylvania court to treat it as related to Judge Kearney’s earlier case.
The detailed version
- UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-10030
- Rearden
- Mar. 5, 2024
Background
Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. moved to transfer the action from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Takeda said the case should be handled there because Judge Mark A. Kearney had presided over a nearly identical case involving the same defendants and alleged conduct, which had concluded fewer than six months earlier.
The plaintiffs stated that the Southern District of New York was an appropriate venue and that the equities did not favor transfer. They nevertheless did not oppose transfer to Judge Kearney. They said they would oppose transfer to a different judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Ruling
The court granted Takeda’s motion to transfer. It vacated all pending deadlines while the transfer was pending and directed the Clerk to transfer the case forthwith to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The court noted that it could not transfer an action to a specified judge in another district. After transfer, the parties could ask the Pennsylvania court to treat this case as related to Judge Kearney’s earlier-filed case under that court’s local rules. The Clerk was also directed to terminate ECF Nos. 35 and 37.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.