Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01207/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01207-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 

Shirley Leibelt and David Leibelt, Civil No. 04-3108 (SRN/TNL) 

wife and husband, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. ORDER

Wyeth d/b/a Wyeth, Inc., 

Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 

Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, 

Pfizer, Inc., Barr Pharmaceuticals, 

Inc., and Greenstone Lab, 

Defendants. 

Charles S. Zimmerman & Ronald S. Goldser, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, 1100 IDS 

Center, 80 South Eighth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402, counsel for Plaintiffs 

Carrie L. Hund & Edward F. Fox, Bassford Remele, PA, 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 

3800, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402, counsel for Defendants Wyeth, Wyeth 

Pharmaceuticals, Pharmacia & Upjohn Company and Pfizer, Inc., and Greenstone Lab 

Jan R. McLean Bernier & Tracy J. Van Steenburgh, Nilan, Johnson, Lewis, PA, 120 

South Sixth Street, Suite 400, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402, counsel for Defendant Barr 

Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 

INTRODUCTION 

This is one of many product-liability actions filed in the District of Minnesota 

related to injuries allegedly caused by the ingestion of the hormone replacement therapy 

medication, specifically Premarin and Medroxyprogesterone Acetate (“MPA”). Plaintiffs 

Shirley and David Leibelt filed this action against Wyeth d/b/a Wyeth, Inc., Wyeth 

Case 3:11-cv-01207-JLS-MDD Document 19 Filed 06/01/11 Page 1 of 5
2

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, Greenstone Ltd., Barr 

Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer, Inc. This case was originally consolidated into a multidistrict litigation but has since been remanded. After remand, the Court issued an Order 

requiring the parties to brief the propriety of a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404, given that 

it appears that the case lacks any discernable connection to Minnesota and that a transfer 

would likely promote the interest of justice. (Doc. No. 12.) Plaintiffs now request 

transfer to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. 

Defendants oppose transfer from the District of Minnesota but explain that if the Court is 

inclined to transfer the case, they agree that it should be transferred to the Southern 

District of California. For the reasons stated below, the Court transfers this case to the 

Southern District of California. 

BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiffs are both residents of the State of California. (Compl. ¶ 5; Pls.’ 

Submission Re Propriety of § 1404(a) Transfer (“Pl.’s Submission”) at 13.) Defendants 

are pharmaceutical companies engaged in the design, manufacture, and distribution of 

hormone therapy drugs. (Compl. ¶¶ 6-7.) Defendants are Delaware corporations with 

their principal places of business in New York, New Jersey and Michigan. (Id. ¶¶ 6-7.) 

According to the Complaint, Plaintiff Shirley Leibelt ingested hormone therapy 

drugs from 1994 to 2000. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 8.) Mrs. Leibelt was diagnosed with breast cancer in 

2000. (Id.) Mrs. Leibelt contends that, as a result of ingesting the hormone therapy 

drugs, she developed breast cancer, resulting in personal injuries and damages. (Id.) In 

addition, Plaintiff David Leibelt asserts a claim of loss of consortium as a result of his 

Case 3:11-cv-01207-JLS-MDD Document 19 Filed 06/01/11 Page 2 of 5
3

wife’s diagnosis and injuries. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 49-50.) Plaintiffs maintain that Defendants 

manufactured the hormone therapy drugs ingested by Shirley Leibelt. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 8.) Mrs. 

Leibelt contends that she bought and ingested the hormone therapy products in California 

and that her treating physicians reside in California. (Pls.’ Submission at 3, 8.)

DISCUSSION 

 “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). When deciding a motion to transfer pursuant 

to § 1404(a), the Court must consider the convenience of the parties, the convenience of 

the witnesses, and the interest of justice. See Terra Int’l, Inc. v. Miss. Chem. Corp., 119 

F.3d 688, 691 (8th Cir. 1997). In considering these factors, the Court must make a 

“case-by-case evaluation of the particular circumstances at hand and a consideration of 

all relevant factors.” Id. The burden is on the party seeking the transfer “to show that the 

balance of factors ‘strongly’ favors the movant.” Graff v. Qwest Commc’ns Corp., 33 

F. Supp. 2d 1117, 1121 (D. Minn. 1999) (quotation omitted). 

 The Court first concludes that this action “might have been brought” in the 

Southern District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). An action may be brought in any 

district where a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim 

occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2). Here, the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claim 

occurred in California, which is where Mrs. Leibelt bought and ingested hormone therapy 

products and where Plaintiffs and Mrs. Leibelt’s treating physicians reside. 

Case 3:11-cv-01207-JLS-MDD Document 19 Filed 06/01/11 Page 3 of 5
4

 The Court also concludes that the convenience of the parties and witnesses favor 

transfer to the Southern District of California. Here, neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants 

reside in Minnesota. Nor have Plaintiffs alleged any other connection with the State. 

Moreover, the underlying facts related to Plaintiffs’ ingestion of hormone replacement 

drugs and diagnosis and treatment for breast cancer occurred in California. The 

physicians and other medical personnel involved in Shirley Leibelt’s care reside or 

practice in California. 

In addition, other critical witnesses in this action will include experts and company 

witnesses. While many of these witnesses reside outside of California, there is no 

evidence that any reside in Minnesota. Therefore, these witnesses will be required to 

travel whether the trial is in Minnesota or California. 

The Court must also evaluate what venue will best promote the interest of justice. 

Graff, 33 F. Supp. 2d at 1122. This factor is weighed “very heavily.” Id. A number of 

relevant considerations include judicial economy, the plaintiff’s choice of forum, the 

costs of litigating in each forum, obstacles to a fair trial, choice-of-law issues, and the 

advantages of having a local court determine questions of local law. See Terra Int'l, 199 

F.3d at 696. Here, Plaintiffs’ choice of forum is given less protection since Plaintiffs do 

not reside in Minnesota, do not have any connection to Minnesota, and because the 

events underlying this action did not occur in Minnesota. See Nelson v. Soo Line R.R. 

Co., 58 F. Supp. 2d 1023, 1026 (D. Minn. 2006). Moreover, Plaintiffs have consented to 

the transfer of this action. Plaintiffs acknowledge that they filed this action in Minnesota 

to take advantage of this State’s statute of limitations period. The Court notes, however, 

Case 3:11-cv-01207-JLS-MDD Document 19 Filed 06/01/11 Page 4 of 5
5

that because Plaintiffs filed this action in Minnesota, the Minnesota statute of limitations 

will continue to govern in the transferee court so long as Plaintiffs are entitled to the 

benefit of the statute of limitations under Minnesota’s choice-of-law rules. See Ferens v. 

John Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516, 523 (1990) (holding that a transfer under § 1404(a) does 

not change the applicable law in a case founded on diversity jurisdiction). 

The remaining considerations with respect to the interest of justice weigh in favor 

of transfer. For example, the substantive law of another state likely applies to Plaintiffs’ 

claims, and the State of California has an interest in determining questions of local law 

and in protecting the rights of an individual who was injured in that state. 

Based on the above, the Court concludes that the interest of justice strongly favors 

the transfer of this action to the Southern District of California. 

ORDER 

 For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of California. 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to effect the transfer. 

Dated: June 1, 2011 s/Susan Richard Nelson 

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:11-cv-01207-JLS-MDD Document 19 Filed 06/01/11 Page 5 of 5