Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WOLFORD v. AMERICAN HOME PRODS. CORP.

December 18, 1996

CRYSTAL WOLFORD, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORP., a Delaware Corporation; WYETH-AYERST LABORATORIES CO., a New York Corporation, Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: ALESIA

 This matter is before the Court on the Court's motion to transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Columbus Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). *fn1"

 I. BACKGROUND

 Defendants American Home Products Corp. and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Co. -- a wholly owned subsidiary of American Home Products Corp. -- developed, manufactured, and distributed a contraceptive product called Norplant.

 Plaintiffs claim that the Norplant product is dangerous and defective. Consequently, Plaintiffs filed an eight count complaint against Defendants premising recovery on: (1) strict product liability; (2) negligence; (3) breach of express warranty; (4) breach of implied warranty; (5) fraud; (6) misrepresentation; (7) consumer fraud; and in count (8) they seek punitive damages.

 All Plaintiffs are citizens of Ohio and reside throughout the state. Defendant American Home Products Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey. Defendant Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Co. is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. *fn2"

 II. DISCUSSION

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a):

 
For the convenience of 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.

 A transfer under § 1404(a) is appropriate if: (1) venue is proper in both the transferor and transferee court; (2) transfer is for the convenience of the parties and witnesses; and (3) transfer is in the interests of justice. Vandeveld v. Christoph, 877 F. Supp. 1160, 1167 (N.D. Ill. 1995). "The weighing of factors for and against transfer necessarily involves a large degree of subtlety and latitude, and therefore, is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge." Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 219 (7th Cir. 1986).

 A. Venue

 Here, venue is proper in both the Northern District of Illinois (the transferor court) and the Southern District of Ohio (the transferee court), see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1) and (2), (c).

 B. Convenience of Parties and Witnesses

 When evaluating the convenience of the parties and witnesses, the court considers, among other things: (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the site of material events; (3) the availability of evidence in each forum; and (4) the convenience to the parties of litigating in the respective forums. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.