Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01713/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01713-2/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Mark Monje and Beth Monje, husband and 

wife, individually and on behalf of their 

minor son; and RM, minor son, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Spin Master Inc., a Delaware corporation; 

Spin Master Limited, a Canadian company; 

Toys “R” US-Delaware Inc.; and Moose 

Enterprises Proprietary Limited, an 

Australian company, 

 Defendants. 

Spin Master, Inc., a Delaware corporation; 

Spin Master, LTD., a Canadian company, 

 Third-Party Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

Bureau Veritas Consumer Products 

Services, Inc., 

 Third-Party Defendants.

No. CV-09-1713-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Third-Party Defendant’s Motion to Sever and Transfer 

the Third-Party Claims (Doc. 208) which is joined by the Plaintiffs (Doc. 222). A 

Response in Opposition has been filed by the Spin Master Defendants (Doc. 224) and 

joined by Moose Enterprises (Doc. 225). For the following reasons the Motion to Sever 

and Transfer is granted. 

Case 2:09-cv-01713-JJT Document 274 Filed 12/11/13 Page 1 of 8
- 2 - 

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 

BACKGROUND 

 This is a tort action based on harm caused to a child who ingested a children’s art 

supply product called Aqua Dots. Spin Master, Inc., Spin Master, Ltd., and Toys “R” UsDelaware Inc. (collectively “Spin Master”) were the distributors of Aqua Dots and are 

defendants in this action. Spin Master brought a third-party claim for common law and 

implied indemnity against the entities that performed toxicity testing on the Aqua Dots. 

The only remaining third-party defendant, Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services 

Inc. (“Bureau Veritas”), now moves to sever and transfer the third-party claim. 

 Spin Master is litigating claims related to the Aqua Dots product in various 

actions. On December 17, 2008, Spin Master filed a lawsuit still pending in the Western 

District of New York (the “New York court”) against Bureau Veritas and related entities. 

In that lawsuit, Spin Master seeks damages from Bureau Veritas for its litigation 

exposure and settlement costs incurred in the personal injury and class action lawsuits. 

On July 13, 2009, Plaintiffs filed this action in state court in Arizona. (Doc. 1.) It was 

subsequently removed to this Court, then transferred to the Northern District of Illinois as 

part of multidistrict litigation, and finally transferred back to this Court. (Docs. 1, 14, 50.) 

The case in the New York court and the third-party claim in this case both center around 

allegations that Bureau Veritas failed to promptly and properly test the toxicity of Aqua 

Dots and are therefore liable for harm caused by Spin Master’s distribution of the Aqua 

Dots. 

DISCUSSION 

I. Legal Standard for Motion to Transfer Venue

 “For the convenience of the 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In other words, “section 1404(a) requires two 

findings—that the district court is one where the action might have been brought and that 

the convenience of parties and witnesses in the interest of justice favor transfer.” Hatch 

v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 1985) (quotations omitted). The party 

Case 2:09-cv-01713-JJT Document 274 Filed 12/11/13 Page 2 of 8
- 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 

moving for transfer has the burden of showing that transfer is appropriate. Jones v. GNC 

Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2000). 

II. The Third-Party Claims Might Have Been Brought in the New York Court. 

Bureau Veritas asks that the third-party claim be transferred to the New York 

court. The threshold inquiry is whether the action “might have been brought” in the 

proposed transferee district. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). As proof for this requirement, Bureau 

Veritas notes the action already pending between the parties in the New York court that 

was brought by Spin Master. Spin Master does not directly claim that this action could 

not have been brought in New York. Instead, it argues that the collateral-source defense 

raised by Bureau Veritas in the New York case might prevent Spin Master from 

recovering there. However, Spin Master argues in a footnote that Arizona law and not 

New York law will apply. The parties disagree about which law may be applicable if this 

Motion to Sever and Transfer is granted and what effect that might have on recovery. 

 These disagreements are not relevant to this threshold inquiry. The only question 

is whether the action “might have been brought” in New York and not whether the 

defenses raised or the outcome achieved would be the same. The Court’s discretionary 

authority to grant transfer only exists if the action might have been brought in New York. 

Here, the threshold requirement is met and the objections do not bar the Court’s 

discretionary authority to transfer. Instead of barring transfer, this line of argument about 

applicable law and available defenses is only relevant in influencing the Court’s 

discretion to the extent that it weighs on the convenience of the parties and witnesses or 

the interest of justice. 

III. The Interests of Justice Warrant Transfer.

 In determining whether transfer would be in the “interest of justice,” § 1404(a), 

the Court may consider a variety of factors, but it has “discretion to adjudicate motions 

for transfer according to an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience 

and fairness.” Jones, 211 F.3d at 498. The factors the Court may consider include, inter 

alia, the parties’ convenience, witnesses’ convenience and availability, availability of 

Case 2:09-cv-01713-JJT Document 274 Filed 12/11/13 Page 3 of 8
- 4 - 

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 

compulsory process to compel unwilling witnesses’ attendance, relative financial 

burdens, access to sources of proof, differences in litigation costs, contacts with the 

chosen forum, the forums’ jurisdiction over the parties, the forums’ relative familiarity 

with the governing law, public policy, the existence of any forum selection clauses, and 

the courts’ relative docket congestion. Jones, 211 F.3d at 498–99; Sparling v. Hoffman 

Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 639 (9th Cir. 1988); Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth 

Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986); Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Liberty Mut. 

Ins. Co., 472 F. Supp.2d 1183, 1196 (S.D. Cal. 2007). These factors are often categorized 

as the parties’ private interest factors or the public interest factors. Atl. Marine Const. Co. 

v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Texas, 12-929, 2013 WL 6231157 *11 n.6 (U.S. Dec. 

3, 2013). 

 Furthermore, “[a]s a general rule, cases should be transferred to districts where 

related actions are pending.” Impra Inc. v. Quinton Instruments Co., CIV-90-0383 PHX 

WPC, 1990 WL 284713 *3 (D. Ariz. June 26, 1990). “The feasibility of consolidation is 

a significant factor in a transfer decision . . . although even the pendency of an action in 

another district is important because of the positive effects it might have in possible 

consolidation of discovery and convenience to witnesses and parties.” A. J. Indus., Inc. v. 

U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 503 F.2d 384, 389 (9th Cir. 1974); Pacesetter 

Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 94–95 (9th Cir. 1982) (“There is a generally 

recognized doctrine of federal comity which permits a district court to decline jurisdiction 

over an action when a complaint involving the same parties and issues has already been 

filed in another district.”). 

 The Supreme Court recently clarified the inquiry into how courts should consider 

motions to transfer under § 1404(a) when a forum-selection clause is present. “[A] proper 

application of § 1404(a) requires that a forum-selection clause be ‘given controlling 

weight in all but the most exceptional cases.’” Atl. Marine Const. Co., 2013 WL 6231157 

*9 (quoting Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 30 (1988)). Specifically, 

courts should give no weight to the plaintiff’s choice of forum and should not consider 

Case 2:09-cv-01713-JJT Document 274 Filed 12/11/13 Page 4 of 8
- 5 - 

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 

the parties’ private interest factors because the forum-selection clause “represents the 

parties’ agreement as to the most proper forum.” Id. *11 (quoting Stewart Org., Inc. v. 

Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 30 (1988)). Therefore, the only consideration before a court is 

whether a given case is the rare occasion where the public interest factors defeat the 

counterweight of the forum-selection clause. Id. 

 Here, transfer is appropriate and the existence of the New York action and the 

forum selection clause are the decisive factors. With regards to the preexisting action in 

New York, Spin Master argues that there are several differences between that action and 

this one. However, none of the issues raised are significant enough to defeat the general 

rule favoring transfer to districts with related actions pending. 

 First, Spin Master argues that the actions are different because its insurer currently 

has no interest in the New York action and might have to take one if the third-party claim 

is transferred. But Spin Master’s insurer is not a party to this litigation. Spin Master 

argues that the insurer would become a real party in interest or have a subrogation claim 

if Spin Master were to settle or be found liable. Assuming without deciding that this is 

true, there is no settlement at this time and liability has not been determined. The Court 

will not consider the interests of a possible future party in determining the 

appropriateness of transferring the claim now. 

 Second, Spin Master argues that the claims raised in the New York action are 

different than those raised here. Although the New York action may be seeking additional 

compensation and pursuing different causes of action, it is also seeking recovery for the 

same injury at issue here. The New York action alleges negligence and initially 

emphasized that it was seeking lost profits and other damages to Spin Master’s business 

interests that resulted from the recall of Aqua Dots. (Doc. 208-1 at 15–18.) After the 

filing of the Monje’s action and others, Spin Master made it clear in the New York action 

that it was also seeking “litigation exposure and settlements costs” based on the “multiple 

personal injury and class action lawsuits against Spin Master throughout the country.” 

(Id. at 23, 25.) That language clearly references this action even if it does not mention the 

Case 2:09-cv-01713-JJT Document 274 Filed 12/11/13 Page 5 of 8
- 6 - 

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 

Monje’s case by name. Although the indemnity cause of action here is a different legal 

theory than the ones pursued in New York, Spin Master is seeking the same recovery for 

the same injury. Spin Master chose to bring its claims in New York and chose the 

theories of recovery that it would pursue there. Spin Master filed the third-party claim in 

this action three years after making a damages claim in New York that encompassed all 

personal injury suits including this one. There is no reason that Spin Master should be 

granted a second bite at the apple in a new forum with a new theory of recovery even if 

the New York action is moving slower than Spin Master would like. 

 The other decisive factor is the existence of the forum selection clause. The 

relationship between Spin Master and Bureau Veritas is a contractual one that was 

created and is governed by the “Test Request Form” and its conditions. (Id. at 29–30.) In 

that contract, Spin Master “agrees that any disputes arising out of this agreement . . . will 

be governed and settled under the applicable principles of New York Law, under 

jurisdiction of New York Courts and that venue in any such action shall be in the County 

of Erie.” As the Supreme Court recently reemphasized, forum-selection clauses are 

typically given controlling weight. In evaluating this transfer request, Spin Master’s 

choice of forum is disregarded and the private interest factors such as costs and 

convenience of witnesses are not weighed by the Court because Spin Master and Bureau 

Veritas agreed that New York was the proper venue. 

 The public interest factors are still considered, but here they weigh in favor of 

transfer. The forum-selection clause specifies the governing law as New York law and 

the New York court is more familiar with that law. New York has a greater interest in 

serving as forum because the contract and interactions between the parties occurred there. 

The relative docket congestion also does not weigh against transfer as this district 

currently has numerous judicial vacancies. 

 Transferring the third-party claim is appropriate even though doing so will not 

completely remove the issues related to the toxicity testing from this litigation. The 

adequacy of the testing was raised repeatedly in Plaintiffs’ complaint and will likely 

Case 2:09-cv-01713-JJT Document 274 Filed 12/11/13 Page 6 of 8
- 7 - 

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 

remain an issue in the negligence cause of action and the punitive damages sought by the 

Plaintiffs in the primary case. However, the issues addressed and the evidence presented 

at trial will be narrowed by transferring Spin Master’s indemnity claim to New York, 

where Spin Master is already pursuing its other claims against Bureau Veritas. 

IV. Severance of the Third-Party Claim.

 In order to transfer the third-party claim to the New York court while retaining the 

primary action in this case, the third-party claim must be severed. Rule 14(a)(4) provides 

that “[a]ny party may move to strike the third-party claim, to sever it, or to try it 

separately.” Here, the third-party defendants and the plaintiffs have permissibly moved to 

sever the third-party claim. 

 In determining whether to order severance, the Court has broad authority. See 

Brunet v. United Gas Pipeline Co., 15 F.3d 500, 505 (5th Cir. 1994) (stating that “[t]he 

trial court has broad discretion to sever issues”); Williams v. Felker, 2006 WL 495994, at 

*1 (E.D. Cal. March 1, 2006) (stating that under Rule 21, “courts have broad discretion 

regarding severance”). This Court has decided to transfer the third-party claim to New 

York. Severance is a necessary precursor to that transfer, and it is justified by the same 

reasoning laid out above. 

CONCLUSION 

 This Court can transfer the third-party claim under § 1404(a) because it could have 

been initially brought in New York. The Court does so because a similar action is already 

pending there and the forum selection clause specifies New York as the agreed upon 

forum. Accordingly, the third-party claim is severed and transferred to the Western 

District of New York. 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Third-Party Defendant’s Motion to Sever and 

Transfer the Third-Party Claims (Doc. 208) is granted. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:09-cv-01713-JJT Document 274 Filed 12/11/13 Page 7 of 8
- 8 - 

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 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to sever the thirdparty claim and parties and to transfer them to the Western District of New York. 

 Dated this 10th day of December, 2013. 

Case 2:09-cv-01713-JJT Document 274 Filed 12/11/13 Page 8 of 8