Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01456/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01456-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERT VON DER WERTH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOHNS MANVILLE CORP., et al.

Defendants. /

No. C 07-01456 JSW

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

TRANSFER

Now before the Court is the transfer filed by defendants Masco Corporation and Masco

Contractor Services (“Masco”). The Court finds that this matter is appropriate for disposition

without oral argument and it is hereby deemed submitted. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Accordingly,

the hearing set for August 17, 2007 is HEREBY VACATED. Having carefully considered the

parties’ arguments and relevant legal authority, the Court hereby grants Masco’s motion. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Albert von der Werth (“Plaintiff”) filed this purported antitrust class action on

behalf of “[a]ll persons in the United States who indirectly purchased fiberglass insulation

manufactured or sold by Defendants ... from January 1, 1999 ...” to the present. (Compl., ¶ 28). 

Based on an alleged conspiracy between the defendants who manufacture fiberglass insulation

and Masco to fix prices, Plaintiff asserts claims pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15

U.S.C. § 1, the California Cartwright Act, California Business and Professions Code § 16720 et

seq., and California Business & Professions Code § 17200.

Case 3:07-cv-01456-JSW Document 73 Filed 08/14/07 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Civil Local Rule 7-5 requires that any factual contentions made in support of or in

opposition to any motion must be supported by an affidavit or declaration. N.D. Civil Local

Rule 7-3(d). Masco merely attached documents as exhibits to its motion in violation of this

Civil Local Rule. Nevertheless, because Exhibits 1 through 6 are all documents of which the

Court may judicial notice, the Court will consider these documents in support of Masco’s

motion. See Fed. R. Evid. 201.

2

On October 19, 2004, six insulation contractors filed a purported class action on behalf

of independent contractors against Johns Manville Inc., Certainteed Corp., Knauf Insulation

GMBH, and Guardian Fiberglass, Inc. (the same individual manufacturers sued in the abovecaptioned matter) and Masco in the Northern District of Georgia for alleged violations of

Section 1 of the Sherman Act. (Compl., Columbus Drywall v. Masco, 1:04-cv-3066 (N.D. Ga.)

(“Georgia Action”), attached as Exhibit 1 to Masco’s Motion.)1

 The current complaint in the

Georgia Action alleges a conspiracy between Masco and the individual manufacturers in which

each of the manufacturers agreed to sell residential fiberglass insulation to independent

contractors only at prices that are a significant percentage above those offered to Masco, on the

condition and with the agreement that the other manufacturers would do the same. (Second

Amended Compl., ¶¶ 2, 26, Georgia Action, attached as Exhibit 2 to the Motion to Transfer.) 

The plaintiffs in the Georgia Action claim that these alleged agreements reduced price

competition in the United States and impaired the ability of Masco’s competitors to obtain

competitive prices for fiberglass insulation. (Id. at ¶ 28.) 

The Georgia Action has progressed substantially. The plaintiffs moved for class

certification in May 2006. (Georgia Action, Docket No. 347.) The court denied the motion,

but gave the plaintiffs leave to file another motion, which they did on June 29, 2007. (Georgia

Action, Docket Nos. 466, 474.) Motions to approve settlements between the individual

manufactures and the plaintiffs are now pending, as well as a motion for summary judgment

filed by Masco. (Georgia Action, Docket Nos. 435, 443.) 

Plaintiff in the above captioned matter asserts identical allegations regarding this alleged

antitrust conspiracy. (Compl., ¶¶ 39–40, 42.) Masco now moves to transfer this action to the

Northern District of Georgia.

Case 3:07-cv-01456-JSW Document 73 Filed 08/14/07 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard for Motion to Transfer.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may transfer a civil action to any district

where the case could have been filed originally for the convenience of the parties and witnesses

and in the interest of justice. A district court has discretion “to adjudicate motions for transfer

according to an ‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.’” 

Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376

U.S. 612, 622 (1964)). A motion to transfer venue under § 1404(a) requires the court to weigh

multiple factors to determine whether transfer is appropriate in a particular case. For example,

the court may consider: (1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) the convenience of witnesses and

the parties; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the applicable law; (4) the ease of access to

evidence; and (5) the relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum. Gulf Oil Co. v.

Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-09 (1947); Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99

(9th Cir. 2000). As the moving party, Defendant bears the burden of showing that the

inconvenience of litigating in this forum favors transfer. See E. & J. Gallo Winery v. F. &

P.S.p.A., 899 F. Supp. 465, 466 (E.D. Cal. 1994). If the balance of convenience weighs strongly

in favor of transfer, the Court may accord less deference to a plaintiff’s chosen forum. See id.

The parties do not dispute that Plaintiff could have sued Masco and the individual

manufacturer defendants in the Northern Distirct of Georgia. Accordingly, the Court must

determine whether the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice warrants or

prohibits transfer under the circumstances. 

B. Masco’s Motion to Transfer.

1. Interests of Justice

“The question of which forum will better serve the interest of justice is of predominant

importance on the question of transfer, and the factors involving convenience of parties and

witnesses are in fact subordinate.” Wireless Consumers Alliance, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,

2003 WL 22387598, * 4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2003); see also Hoefer v. Department of

Commerce, 2000 WL 890862, * 3 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2000) (finding fact that another lawsuit

Case 3:07-cv-01456-JSW Document 73 Filed 08/14/07 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

similar to the case at issue was initiated previously in another district was compelling factor in

favor of transfer); London and Hull Maritime Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Eagle Pacific Ins. Co., 1996 WL

479013, *5 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (“The most important factor to consider is the ‘interests of

justice.’”) (citation omitted). 

 In Hoefer, the court transferred the matter, reasoning that where a similar action was

filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, allowing the case to remain in Northern

District of California would “entail a significant waste of time and energy and would involve

duplicate effort by [the] court.” Hoefer, 2000 WL 890862, at *3; see also London and Hull

Maritime, 1996 WL 479013, *5 (quoting Continental Grain Co. v. The FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19,

26 (1960)) (“To permit a situation in which two cases involving precisely the same issues are

simultaneously pending in different District Courts leads to the wastefulness of time, energy

and money that § 1404(a) was designed to prevent.”).

The court in the Northern District of Georgia is intimately familiar with the issues and

evidence central to this case. Although the plaintiffs in this matter and the one before the court

in the Northern District of Georgia differ, both plaintiffs seek to bring a national class action on

behalf of purchasers of fiberglass insulation against the same defendants. The Court finds

Plaintiff’s attempts to distinguish this matter from the Georgia Action unavailing. Plaintiff

argues as though he only filed California claims on behalf of a class of California residents, but

he asserts a Sherman Act claim on behalf of a nationwide class. (Compl., ¶¶ 28, 67-72.) 

Plaintiff’s Cartwright Act claim mirrors his Sherman Act claim factually. (Id. at ¶¶ 73-79.) 

Moreover, the legal analysis under Sherman Act and Cartwright Act claims substantially

overlap. See Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Great Western Financial Corp., 69 Cal.2d 305, 315

(1968) (“The California law of antitrust, commonly known as the Cartwright ... is patterned

upon the federal Sherman Act and both have their roots in the common law; hence federal cases

interpreting the Sherman Act are applicable with respect to the Cartwright Act.”). 

Accordingly, in light of the pending Georgia Action, the Court finds that the interests of justice

and conservation of resources of both the judicial system and the parties would be strongly

served by transferring this matter to the Northern District of Georgia.

Case 3:07-cv-01456-JSW Document 73 Filed 08/14/07 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

2. Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses

Among the factors relevant to the convenience of the parties and witnesses, courts

consider the following factors: (1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) the convenience of

witnesses and the parties; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the applicable law; (4) the ease of

access to evidence; and (5) the relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum. Gulf

Oil, 330 U.S. at 508-09; Jones, 211 F.3d at 498-99.

Ordinarily 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). There are, however, factors that diminish the deference given to

a plaintiff’s choice of forum. When, such as here, “an individual brings a derivative suit or

represents a class, the named plaintiff’s choice of forum is given less weight.” See Lou v.

Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Italian Colors Rest. v. Am. Express Co.,

2003 WL 22682482, *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2003) (“If the named plaintiff purports to act on

behalf of a nationwide class of merchants, there is nothing unique or probative about the

location of its place of business.”). 

Moreover, less weight is given to the plaintiff’s choice of forum if the operative facts

have not occurred within the forum. Lou, 834 F.2d at 739. Plaintiff is a citizen of California. 

However, other than alleged purchases of fiberglass insulation, Plaintiff does not allege conduct

relevant to its antitrust and unfair competition claims occurred in California. Masco and the

individual manufacturer defendants that allegedly conspired to fix prices do not reside in

California. Moreover, the only specific meeting location relevant to the alleged conspiracy

Plaintiff alleges occurred in Miami, Florida. (Compl., ¶ 52.) Thus, the operative facts relevant

to the alleged conspiracy do not appear to have occurred in California. Therefore, the Court

will afford less deference to Plaintiff’s choice of forum.

The Court finds that the factors regarding the relative ease of access to sources of proof,

the availability of the compulsory process for unwilling witnesses and the cost of securing

willing witnesses, and local interest in the issue do not tip the scales either way. While the

Case 3:07-cv-01456-JSW Document 73 Filed 08/14/07 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

parties argue about the location of potential witnesses and evidence, neither party has submitted

admissible evidence in support of these factors.

Finally, the fact that the median time from the filing of a complaint to trial is six months

shorter in the Northern District of California than in the Northern District of Georgia does not

weigh against transfer. (Opp. at 7.) These statistics should not be considered in a vacuum. The

Court cannot ignore that the Georgia Action with substantially similar claims is currently

pending in the Northern District of Georgia. Based on the familiarity of the court in the

Northern District of Georgia of the law and underlying facts at issue in this litigation, it is likely

that the parties’ litigation would be resolved in substantially less time if it proceeded in Georgia. 

This factor favors transfer. See Saleh v. Titan Corp., 361 F.Supp.2d 1152, 1167 (S.D. Cal.

2005). 

The thus Court finds that the interests of justice and conservation of resources, and the

fact that this case would likely be resolved in significantly less time if it proceeded in the

Northern District of Georgia, strongly favors transfer. Moreover, in light of the diminished

deference afforded to Plaintiff’s choice of forum, the Court finds that upsetting Plaintiff’s

choice of forum here is warranted. Accordingly, the Court grants Masco’s motion to transfer.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Masco’s motion to transfer and

ORDERS the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of

Georgia. The Clerk is directed to transfer this case, forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-01456-JSW Document 73 Filed 08/14/07 Page 6 of 6