Esquer v. StockX, LLC
| Decision Date | 26 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 19-CV-05933-LHK |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | LAURA ESQUER, Plaintiff, v. STOCKX, LLC, Defendant. |
Defendant StockX, LLC brings a motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). ECF No. 20. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion.
Plaintiff Laura Esquer is a resident of San Jose, California and brings this action on behalf of herself and a putative class of California residents (collectively, "Plaintiffs"). ECF No. 1 ("Compl.") ¶¶ 17, 66. Defendant StockX, LLC is a Michigan limited liability company with its principal place of business in Detroit, Michigan. Id. ¶ 26.
Defendant operates a website that allows users to buy and sell "like-new merchandise." Id. ¶ 26. On July 26, 2019, Defendant purportedly discovered a breach of 6.8 million customer records from Defendant's website. Id. ¶ 49. The breach was reported in the media in August 2019. Id. ¶¶ 2, 4-5, 52. Plaintiff Esquer created an account with Defendant in early to mid-2019 and alleges that her information was stolen in the data breach. Id. ¶¶ 18-20.
Plaintiffs contend that Defendant knew about the breach but informed its users to change their passwords because of "system updates." Id. ¶¶ 3, 51. Plaintiffs claim that Defendant failed to take adequate data-security measures and to detect and respond to the breach. Id. ¶¶ 6-9. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendant failed to follow data-security guidance from the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"). Id. ¶¶ 46-48. As a result, Plaintiffs state that the proposed class has suffered or will likely suffer injuries including unauthorized charges, theft of personal information, time and effort to regain access to accounts and correct records, and diminution in the value of their personal data. Id. ¶ 10.
Plaintiff Esquer filed the instant putative class action on September 23, 2019, on behalf of herself and a proposed class comprising "all citizens of California whose Customer Data was stolen from StockX during the Data Breach." Id. ¶ 66. Plaintiffs bring three claims: (1) a claim under California Civil Code § 1798.81.5 for failure to maintain "reasonable security" of personal information; (2) a claim under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2207, for a declaratory judgment; and (3) a claim under the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 15200 et seq., premised on violations of California Civil Code section 1798.81.5 and the Federal Trade Commission Act. Id. ¶¶ 78-104. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorney's fees and costs. Id. at 23-24.
In addition to the instant case, five other putative class actions have been filed in federal court, four of which were filed prior to this case: three in the Eastern District of Michigan, one in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and one in the Southern District of Florida.1 ECF No. 20("Mot.") at 1, 6-8; ECF No. 20-1 ("Rollins Decl.") ¶¶ 2-7. Although Defendant sought multidistrict litigation ("MDL") consolidation, on December 18, 2019, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied Defendant's request to consolidate litigation in the Eastern District of Michigan. In re StockX Customer Data Security Breach Litig., 412 F. Supp. 3d 1363, 1364 (J.P.M.L 2019). On January 13, 2020, the parties to the Southern District of Florida case stipulated to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Michigan. Mot. at 7; Rollins Decl. ¶ 3. On March 2, 2020, the four cases in the Eastern District of Michigan were consolidated before Judge Victoria Roberts. Reply at 1. Defendant has also moved to transfer the Eastern District of Pennsylvania action to the Eastern District of Michigan; that motion remains pending as of the date of this Order. See McBride v. StockX, LLC, No. 2:19-cv-03685-PBT (E.D. Pa May 6, 2020), ECF No. 12.
On January 24, 2020, Defendant moved to transfer the instant case to the Eastern District of Michigan. See Mot. Plaintiffs opposed on February 21, 2020. See ECF 26-3 ("Opp'n"). Defendant filed its reply on March 9, 2020. See ECF 30-3 ("Reply").
A motion to transfer venue from one district to another is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which states: "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. § 1404(a). Generally, the party seeking transfer bears the burden of showing that transfer is appropriate. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2000).
Under the plain text of the statute, the moving party must make two showings in order to justify transfer. First, the transferee forum must be one in which the case "might have been brought." Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 344 (1960). "In determining whether an action 'mighthave been brought' in a district, the court looks to whether the action initially could have been commenced in that district." Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 1985). Second, provided the case could have been brought in the proposed transferee forum, the movant must persuade the court that considerations of "convenience of parties and witnesses" and "the interest of justice" weigh in favor of transfer. Earth Island Inst. v. Quinn, 56 F. Supp. 3d 1110, 1117 (N.D. Cal. 2014). The Ninth Circuit has identified a number of specific but non-exhaustive factors which "the court may consider" in analyzing those overarching statutory considerations: "(1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) the state that is 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 costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, . . . (8) the ease of access to sources of proof," (9) "the presence of a forum selection clause," if any; and (10) "the relevant public policy of the forum state, if any." Jones, 211 F.3d at 498-99.
A district court is not restricted to the pleadings on a motion transfer and may consider, inter alia, "undisputed facts supported by affidavits, depositions, stipulations, or other relevant documents." FastCap, LLC v. Snake River Tool Co., LLC, No. 15-CV-02764-JSC, 2015 WL 6828196, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2015). Section 1404(a) affords the court significant discretion to transfer the case based on 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, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)).
In the instant motion, Defendant seeks to transfer this case to the Eastern District of Michigan. As set forth below, the Court finds that this case "might have been brought" in the Eastern District of Michigan and that the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice favor transfer.
The first requirement for transfer, as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1404, is that the transferee forum must be one in which the case "might have been brought." Hoffman, 363 U.S. at 344. An action might have been brought in a district court if "(1) [the district court] has subject matter jurisdiction; (2) defendants would have been subject to personal jurisdiction; and (3) venue would have been proper." Duffy v. Facebook, Inc., No. 16-CV-06764-JSC, 2017 WL 1739109, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2017).
Plaintiffs and Defendant agree that the instant action could have been brought in the Eastern District of Michigan. Opp'n at 6 (); Mot. at 10-11. The Court agrees and addresses in turn each of the three elements: (1) subject matter jurisdiction, (2) personal jurisdiction, and (3) venue.
As to the first element, the Court agrees that the Eastern District of Michigan would have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The Class Action Fairness Act vests federal courts with original jurisdiction over class actions that meet the following prerequisites: (1) "the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs"; (2) the parties meet minimal requirements for diversity such that "any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant"; and (3) the class equals to or exceeds 100 individuals in the aggregate. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Those requirements are satisfied here. First, Plaintiffs allege that the amount in controversy "exceeds $5 million exclusive of interest and costs." Compl. ¶ 14. Second, the number of members of the proposed class is greater than 100. Id. Third, at least one class member is a citizen of a different state from Defendant: Plaintiff Esquer is a citizen of California, id. ¶ 17, whereas Defendant is a Michigan limited liability company with its principal place of business in Michigan, id. ¶ 26; Rollins Decl. ¶ 11. Accordingly, the Eastern District of Michigan would have subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.
As to the second element, Defendant StockX, LLC would be subject to personal jurisdiction in Michigan as a Michigan limited liability corporation with its principal place ofbusiness in Michigan, as set forth above.
As to the third element, venue would be proper in the Eastern District of Michigan. The venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, provides that a civil action may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial