1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

LISA WYTKO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER

Civil File No. 10-2210 (MJD/AJB)

I-FLOW CORPORATION, 

Defendant.

Gregory N. McEwen, McEwen Law Firm, Ltd., and Nathan D. Prosser and 

Yvonne M. Flaherty, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Counsel for Plaintiff. 

Michael C. Lindberg, Johnson & Lindberg, PA, Counsel for Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant I-Flow Corporation’s Motion 

to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). [Docket No. 13] Having 

received and reviewed all of the parties’ submissions regarding this motion, as 

well as the entire record in this case, the Court concludes that oral argument is 

unnecessary and will rule on the papers in this matter. Therefore, oral argument 

currently scheduled for Friday, March 4, 2011, is cancelled.

This action is one of many product-liability actions involving pain pumps 

that have been filed in the District of Minnesota despite having no discernable 

Case 2:11-cv-00537-WJM-MF Document 25 Filed 01/27/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 165
2

connection to Minnesota. Plaintiff Lisa Wytko is a citizen of New Jersey. 

Defendant I-Flow Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place 

of business in California. Plaintiff underwent shoulder surgeries in New Jersey 

in 2007. She now sues for damages that she allegedly sustained from pain 

pumps that continuously injected anesthetic into her shoulder joint following the 

surgeries. No act giving rise to this action occurred in Minnesota, and none of 

the alleged injuries for which Plaintiff seeks to recover were suffered in 

Minnesota.

Defendant maintains that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404, transfer to the 

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey is warranted. Plaintiff 

opposes transfer. When considering a motion to transfer under § 1404(a), the 

Court considers three factors: “(1) the convenience of the parties, (2) the 

convenience of the witnesses, and (3) the interests of justice.” Terra Int’l, Inc. v. 

Miss. Chem. Corp., 119 F.3d 688, 691 (8th Cir. 1997). When analyzing the 

convenience prong, courts typically consider “(1) the convenience of the parties, 

(2) the convenience of the witnesses – including the willingness of witnesses to 

appear, the ability to subpoena witnesses, and the adequacy of deposition 

testimony, (3) the accessibility to records and documents, (4) the location where 

Case 2:11-cv-00537-WJM-MF Document 25 Filed 01/27/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 166
3

the conduct complained of occurred, and (5) the applicability of each forum 

state’s substantive law.” Id. at 696.

Transferring this case will promote the interests of justice and the 

convenience of the parties. No party, potential witness, evidence, or relevant 

event has any relevant connection to Minnesota. Moreover, a transfer will not

prejudice any party. This case will remain in federal court and, assuming that 

this case was properly filed in Minnesota, the same choice-of-law rules would 

apply after transfer. See Ferens v. John Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516, 523 (1990) 

(holding that a § 1404(a) transfer does not change the law applicable in a 

diversity case). The main effect of a transfer will be to put the parties in a forum 

that has some connection to the underlying dispute and is more convenient for 

the parties. 

Other judges in the District of Minnesota have determined that transfer is 

warranted in cases presenting issues identical to those in this case. See, e.g., 

Coccodrilli v. I-Flow Corp., Civil No. 10-2083 (JNE/SRN) (D. Minn. Aug. 11, 

2010); Murphy v. I-Flow Corp., Civil No. 10-674 (DSD/SRN), 2010 WL 2985707 

(D. Minn. July 26, 2010); Powell v. I-Flow Corp., 711 F. Supp. 2d 1012 (D. Minn. 

2010). The Court agrees with the reasoning and conclusion of those cases. 

Case 2:11-cv-00537-WJM-MF Document 25 Filed 01/27/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 167
4

Therefore, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of 

justice, the Court transfers this case to the District of New Jersey. 

Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Defendant I-Flow Corporation’s Motion to Transfer Venue 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) [Docket No. 13] is GRANTED. 

2. This case is transferred to the United States District Court for the 

District of New Jersey. 

Dated: January 27, 2011 s/ Michael J. Davis 

Michael J. Davis 

Chief Judge 

United States District Court 

Case 2:11-cv-00537-WJM-MF Document 25 Filed 01/27/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 168