Aegis Sci. Corp. v. Millennium Lab. Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 August 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:11-cv-00294,3:11-cv-00294 |
| Parties | AEGIS SCIENCES CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. MILLENNIUM LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
MEMORANDUM
Defendant Millennium Laboratories, Inc. ("Millennium" or "Defendant") filed a Motion to Transfer Venue or, in the Alternative, to Dismiss (Docket Entry No. 12), to which Plaintiff Aegis Sciences Corporation ("Aegis" or "Plaintiff") filed a response (Docket Entry No. 23), and Defendant filed a reply (Docket Entry No. 38). Also, Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Oral Argument on Defendant's transfer motion (Docket Entry No. 22), and Defendant has not responded. Finally, Defendant has filed a Motion for Relief from the Case Management Order and Stay of Discovery (Docket Entry No. 30), to which Plaintiff filed a response (Docket Entry No. 36) and Defendant filed a reply (Docket Entry No. 41). For the reasons discussed herein, the Court will grant Defendant's motion to transfer venue and deny the other motions as moot.
Aegis, based in Nashville, Tennessee, and Millennium, based in San Diego, California, compete nationwide in the market for clinical drug screening, including drug testing services for pain management physicians. On January 19, 2011, Millennium sued Aegis in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court in Florida ("Florida action"). Aegis removed the Florida action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.According to the operative complaint in the Florida action,1 Aegis allegedly offers physicians illegal kickbacks in the form of "space lease" arrangements in physician offices. These leases allegedly include the placement of personnel, such as specimen collectors and administrative staff, in physician offices. Aegis allegedly provides physicians with requisition forms that result in the ordering of potentially unnecessary tests so Aegis may obtain exorbitant amounts in reimbursement. Aegis also has allegedly made misrepresentations about the significance of certain professional accreditations that Millennium lacks and about Millennium's purportedly illegal business practices. Based on these allegations, Millennium pled causes of action for unfair competition, tortious interference with business relationships, and violations of deceptive and unfair trade practices statutes—each pursuant to the law of Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. Millennium has also pled causes of action under the Lanham Act for commercial disparagement and false advertising and pursuant to a Florida statute for mistaken advertising.
In its answer and countercomplaint in the Florida action, Aegis denied that its commercial lease arrangements violated any applicable laws and alleged that Millennium's false allegations are intended to defame Aegis. Therefore, Aegis pled counterclaims for unfair competition, violation of the deceptive and unfair trade practices statute, and tortious interference with business relationships—each pursuant to Florida law—and for commercial disparagement pursuant to the Lanham Act.
Aegis filed the complaint in the present action before this Court on March 29, 2011. According to the complaint, Millennium allegedly offers physicians illegal kickbacks in the form of free staff and services at the physician's office. Millennium allegedly uses prohibited fee arrangements to lease equipment to physician's offices. Millennium has also allegedly engaged in illegal business practices to maximize its reimbursement and incentivize physician referrals of testing. The complaint states that Millennium's alleged misconduct takes place "in Tennessee and in other states." (Docket Entry No. 1 ¶24.) Based on these allegations, Aegis has pled state-law causes of action for intentional interference with existing or prospective business relationships, unfair competition, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act; a cause of action under the Lanham Act for false advertising; and a request for a declaratory judgment concerning the unlawfulness of Millennium's business practices and the lawfulness of Aegis's practices.
Millennium then filed the pending motion to transfer this action to the Southern District of Florida.
"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." 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a) (2006). The statute confers broad discretion on the district court to determine when transfer is appropriate. Reese v. CNH Am. LLC, 574 F.3d 315, 320 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Phelps v. McClellan, 30 F.3d 658, 663 (6th Cir. 1994)). The analysis begins by establishing that the action could be brought in the transferee court. Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S.335, 343-44 (1960); Cont'l First Fed., Inc. v. Watson Qual. Ford, Inc., No. 3:08-0954, 2010 WL 1836808, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. May 6, 2010). Then, within the general criteria set forth in the statute, specific factors to consider include the costs of obtaining willing witnesses, the availability of process to make reluctant witnesses testify, the accessibility of evidence, and the practical problems of trying the case as expeditiously and inexpensively as possible. Smith v. Kyphon, Inc., 578 F. Supp. 2d 954, 962 (M.D. Tenn. 2008). Other relevant public interest concerns include the enforceability of the judgment, practical issues of trial management, docket congestion, the interest in adjudicating local controversies at home, public policies, and the trial judge's knowledge of the applicable state law. Id. (citing Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879-80 (3d Cir. 1995)). The moving party bears the burden of establishing the need for the change in forum, and the plaintiff's choice of forum receives deference unless the defendant makes the necessary showing. See Sullivan v. Tribley, 602 F. Supp. 2d 795, 800 (E.D. Mich. 2009); Grand Kensington, LLC v. Burger King Corp., 71 F. Supp. 2d 834, 836 (E.D. Mich. 2000).
Millennium successfully establishes that Aegis could have brought this action in the Southern District of Florida. An action "might have been brought" in a transferee court if that court has subject matter jurisdiction, venue would be proper, and the defendant is amenable to process from that court. See Kay v. Nat'l City Mortg. Co., 494 F. Supp. 2d 845, 849 (S.D. Ohio 2007). Here, subject matter jurisdiction is properly founded on both federal question and diversity grounds, and, because both parties have already conceded in the Florida action that Florida has personal jurisdiction over them, venue is likewise proper.2 See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391(b)-(c) (2006); Centerville ALF, Inc. v. Balanced Care Corp., 197 F. Supp. 2d 1039, 1048(S.D. Ohio 2002). Recognizing that Aegis's choice to litigate in Tennessee is entitled to deference, the Court proceeds to analyze the relevant factors.
The Court begins with the finding that the interest of justice weighs heavily in favor of transfer because transfer will achieve the most efficient adjudication of this dispute. Millennium and Aegis have both filed lawsuits asserting similar challenges to the other's business practices. Each company's complaint alleges that the other is engaging in illegal kickbacks and false advertising, to the detriment of its lawfully competing rival. The causes of action—Lanham Act, unfair competition, interference with business relationships, violation of deceptive practices statutes—overlap significantly. Given the scope and similarity of the allegations, the most efficient use of attorney and judicial resources is to litigate these suits in a single forum. Transferring the action will avoid duplicate efforts in both case filings and discovery and prevent inconsistent outcomes on the merits. See, e.g., D2L Ltd. v. Blackboard, Inc., 671 F. Supp. 2d 768, 783 (D. Md. 2009); Jaramillo v. DineEquity, Inc., 664 F. Supp. 2d 908, 916 (N.D. Ill. 2009); Houston Trial Reports, Inc. v. LRP Publ'ns, Inc., 85 F. Supp. 2d 663, 671-72 (S.D. Tex. 1999).
Aegis overstates the differences between the two cases, particularly in its argument that the Florida action is confined to events within Florida. The operative complaint in the Florida action repeatedly contends that Aegis's alleged misconduct is taking place in multiple states.3 The causes of action pled demonstrate this multi-state focus, as Millennium alleges unfaircompetition, tortious interference, and violation of unfair trade practices statutes—each pursuant to the law of Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. By comparison, in the case before this Court, Aegis admits that the issues are "national in scope." (Docket Entry No. 23, at 11.) Therefore, both actions involve misconduct taking place in multiple states. Furthermore, some of the allegations in the two cases are nearly the mirror image of one another. As just one example, in this action, Aegis alleges that Millennium engages in unfair competition through illegal billing methods. In the Florida action, Millennium correspondingly alleges that Aegis engages in unfair competition by making false representations about the illegality of Millennium's billing methods. These competing allegations are most appropriately resolved in the same judicial forum.
Other factors related to the interest of justice weigh in favor of transfer. The Florida action is beginning to make progress, as the Southern District has already entered a scheduling order and the parties have begun discovery and motion practice. Whether the trial judge has the necessary knowledge of...
To continue reading
Request your trial