Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01890/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01890-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eli Lilly and Company
Defendant
Carl Woodruff
Plaintiff
Penny Woodruff
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEANNA CHESHIER,

Plaintiff,

v.

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, an 

Indiana Corporation,

Defendant.

CARL WOODRUFF and PENNY 

WOODRUFF,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, and 

Indiana corporation,

 Defendant.

No. 1:14-CV-01265-GEB-SKO

No. 2:14-CV-01890-GEB-SKO 

ORDER DENYING EACH PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Each Plaintiff moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for an 

order transferring venue to the Southern District of Indiana,

where Defendant Eli Lilly and Company (“Defendant”) is 

headquartered. Section 1404(a) prescribes: “For the convenience 

of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district 

Case 2:14-cv-01890-MCE-SKO Document 27 Filed 04/09/15 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

court may transfer any civil action to any other district or 

division where it might have been brought . . . .”

A motion to transfer venue under section 

1404(a) requires the court to weigh multiple 

factors in its determination whether transfer 

is appropriate in a particular case. For 

example, the court may consider: (1) the 

location where the relevant [events 

occurred], (2) the state most familiar with 

the governing law, (3) the plaintiff’s choice 

of forum, (4) the respective parties’ 

contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts 

relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action 

in the chosen forum, (6) the differences in 

the cost of litigation in the two forums, (7) 

the availability of compulsory process to 

compel attendance of unwilling non-party 

witnesses, and (8) the ease of access to 

sources of proof. 

Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-499 (9th Cir. 

2000).

The essence of each Plaintiff’s argument is that the 

motion should be granted because his or her case is among fortyseven “Cymbalta actions” filed in twenty-nine district courts and 

that venue transfer would prevent the “needlessly burdensome” 

task of “individually litigating this volume of cases,” reduce

costs, and increase efficiency. (Cheshier Docket Reply 6:3-7, ECF 

No. 26; Woodruff Docket Reply 6:3-7, ECF No. 23.). Plaintiffs 

allege they suffered injury from discontinuing use of Cymbalta, a 

drug manufactured and marketed by Defendant, and that this injury 

was caused by Defendant’s failure to adequately warn of the 

potential effects of withdrawal from Cymbalta. 

Defendant counters Plaintiffs have not sustained their 

burden of showing that transferring venue is in the interests of 

justice. Specifically, Defendant argues:

a predominance of factors militate in favor 

Case 2:14-cv-01890-MCE-SKO Document 27 Filed 04/09/15 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

of maintaining venue in the Eastern District 

of California — including . . . access to and 

convenience of key third-party witnesses and 

potential ability to compel the presence of 

these key witnesses at trial; and the 

interest of the state of California in the 

adjudication of disputes brought by its 

citizens by experienced California-based 

jurists. 

(Cheshier Docket Opp’n 10:24-11:1, ECF No. 25; Woodruff Docket 

Opp’n 10:24-11:1, ECF No. 22.)

Each Plaintiff fails to show that the balance of the

transfer of venue factors favors granting his or her requested 

transfer. Therefore, each motion is DENIED. 

Dated: April 9, 2015

Case 2:14-cv-01890-MCE-SKO Document 27 Filed 04/09/15 Page 3 of 3