Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02299/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02299-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Plaintiffs’ reply was due on May 17, 2010. See LRCiv 7.2(d). Without explanation

or request for leave for extension of time, plaintiffs filed their reply on May 24, 2010.

Because plaintiffs’ reply violates our local rules, we will not consider it.

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Susan B. Hirt; Eugene T. Hirt, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-2299-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Plaintiff Susan Hirt alleges that she suffered physical injury as a result of the

implantation of the Avaulta® implantable synthetic vaginal mesh device. She filed this

action against C.R. Bard, Inc. (“Bard”), the maker of the mesh device, asserting claims of

strict products liability, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, fraud, and

violation of state consumer fraud laws. Bard, the sole remaining defendant, is a New Jersey

corporation, headquartered in Murray Hill, New Jersey. The division of Bard responsible for

the design, manufacture, and marketing of the mesh device is Bard Urological Division,

located in Covington, Georgia. 

The court now has before it plaintiffs’ motion for stay of discovery and change of

venue (doc. 34), defendants’ response (doc. 37), and plaintiffs’ belated reply (doc. 39).1

Case 2:09-cv-02299-FJM Document 40 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Although both parties agree that venue is no longer convenient in this district, they disagree

as to which venue is the most convenient on transfer. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the

interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division

where it might have been brought.” We will weigh multiple factors in considering whether

transfer is appropriate, including (1) plaintiff’s choice of forum, (2) the parties’ respective

contacts with the forum, (3) the ease of access to sources of proof, (4) the availability of

compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, (5) the forum

state’s interest in the litigation, and (6) the difference in the costs of litigation in the two

forums. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000). A defendant

“must make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiff’s choice of

forum.” Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986).

Plaintiffs suggest that the United States District Court for the Northern District of

Georgia, where the subject mesh device was manufactured and marketed, is the most

appropriate forum. They argue that Bard should have no objection to litigating in its own

forum, which is ostensibly more convenient to Bard and its witnesses. However, Bard

suggests that the more appropriate venue is the Eastern District of Michigan, where

plaintiff’s surgery and subsequent medical treatment occurred. Bard contends that all sources

of proof relating to plaintiff’s injury are located in Michigan, and that most, if not all, of the

non-party witnesses, specifically plaintiff’s physicians and other medical providers, reside

in or near Michigan and therefore cannot be compelled to attend trial in Georgia. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(ii). 

This is a products liability action. Plaintiffs contend that the tortious conduct giving

rise to plaintiffs’ claims, including the defective design, testing, manufacturing and

marketing of the product, occurred in Georgia. Moreover, the majority of the witnesses and

documents related to Bard’s liability are located in Georgia. Plaintiffs argue that Georgia has

the greater interest in holding parties accountable for damages resulting from the faulty

design of products manufactured and marketed in its state. Finally, plaintiffs assert that, in

Case 2:09-cv-02299-FJM Document 40 Filed 05/25/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

the interest of judicial economy, they hope to consolidate their case with other cases that

have been filed against Bard in the Northern District of Georgia and assigned to one judge.

Bard asserts only that it will not have compulsory process over certain medical

providers who performed the implantation surgery and subsequent corrective surgeries. But

these damages witnesses, while significant, are secondary to the many liability witnesses and

documents located in Georgia and which form the basis of plaintiffs’ cause of action. We

conclude that Bard has failed to make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant

upsetting the plaintiffs’ choice of forum. 

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiffs’ motion to transfer venue (doc. 34). 

IT IS ORDERED TRANSFERRING this case to the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia. It is further ORDERED DENYING plaintiffs’ motion

to stay discovery (doc. 34). The Rule 16 Scheduling Order is effective unless and until

modified in the transferee district.

DATED this 24th day of May, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02299-FJM Document 40 Filed 05/25/10 Page 3 of 3