United States District Court, S.D. California
CYNTHIA L. CZUCHAJ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
CONAIR CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO SEVER AND TRANSFER
CERTAIN CLAIMS
Hon.
Roger T. Benitez United States District Judge.
Defendant
Conair Corporation filed a Motion to Sever and Transfer
Certain Claims. (ECF No. 290.) Defendant seeks the following
orders: (1) to sever individual claims from class claims; (2)
to sever the California subclass count from the New York
subclass count; (3) to transfer the New York subclass count
to the Southern District of New York or the District of
Connecticut; and (4) to transfer the individual claims to
their respective Federal District Courts. (Id.)
Plaintiffs oppose the Motion. (ECF No. 299.)
As
explained below, the Court severs and transfers the
non-California individual claims. The Court declines to sever
the California subclass claim from the New York subclass
claim.
BACKGROUND
This
action arises from two alleged defects in Defendant
Conair’s Infinity Pro 1875 Watt hair dryer, a defect to
the strain relief in the product’s cord and a defect to
coils in the barrel of the product. Plaintiffs argue that all
hair dryers suffered from the coil defect, even if the hair
dryers first failed due to problems with the cord. There are
four named plaintiffs: Plaintiffs Czuchaj, Carter, McConnell,
and Mundy. Czuchaj is the only California resident. Carter
resides in New York, McConnell resides in Michigan, and Mundy
resides in Pennsylvania. The hair dryers of Czuchaj and
McConnell had cord failures, while the hair dryers of Carter
and Mundy failed because of the coil issue.
On
March 30, 2016, the nationwide damages class was decertified,
and on May 24, 2016, the nationwide injunctive relief class
was decertified. (ECF Nos. 248, 280.) After decertification
and summary judgment, by the Court’s count,
twenty-seven claims remain, only two of which have been
certified for a class action. The two class claims are a
California damages subclass for violation of the Song-Beverly
Warranty Act, represented by Plaintiff Czuchaj, and a New
York damages subclass for violation of New York General
Business Law section 349, represented by Plaintiff Carter.
There are twenty-five individual claims asserted under five
states’ laws: California, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio,
and Michigan. Each plaintiff individually asserts claims
based on strict products liability, implied warranty, and
consumer protection laws.[1]
Defendant
seeks to sever and transfer Plaintiffs Mundy and
McConnell’s individual claims because it would be
inefficient, cumbersome, and prejudicial to try their cases
with the other claims. Defendant asserts that their claims
are factually and legally different than the class claims.
Defendant requests, but does not address, severance of
Plaintiffs Czuchaj and Carter’s individual claims and
transfer of Carter’s claims to the Southern District of
New York or the District of Connecticut.
Plaintiffs
agree to sever the individual claims of Mundy and McConnell
but do not consent to transfer. They believe that Mundy and
McConnell’s claims should be stayed until completion of
the class trial.
Defendant
also requests severance of the California subclass from the
New York subclass and transfer of the New York subclass to an
appropriate district court. Defendant argues severance is
necessary to avoid prejudice to Conair and promote judicial
economy. Plaintiffs reject Defendant’s contentions.
DISCUSSION
I.
Defendant’s Motion to Sever
A.
Legal Standard Governing Severance
A court
has broad discretion to sever claims under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 21, which permits a court to “sever any
claim against a party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 21. In considering
whether to sever a claim under Rule 21, the court considers
the following factors: (1) whether the claims arise out of
the same transaction or occurrence; (2) whether the claims
present some common questions of law or fact; (3) whether
settlement of the claims or judicial economy would be
facilitated; (4) whether prejudice would be avoided if
severance were granted; and (5) whether different witnesses
and documentary proof are required for the separate claims.
Anticancer, Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., No. 11-cv-107, 2012
WL 1019796, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2012).
B. The
Court Severs the Non-California Individual Claims
Severance
of Plaintiffs Carter, McConnell, and Mundy’s individual
claims under the laws of New York, Ohio, Michigan, and
Pennsylvania will promote judicial economy and avoid
prejudice to both parties. Although Plaintiffs’ claims
all arise from alleged defects to the same hair dryer, the
facts differ regarding each Plaintiff’s use (and
potential misuse) of the product and resulting damages. There
is a risk that a jury might conclude that one
plaintiff’s misuse of a product bars all of the other
plaintiffs’ individual claims. Similarly, “one
plaintiff, despite a weaker case of causation, could benefit
merely through association with the stronger
plaintiff’s case.” Rubio, 2016 WL
3097292, at *6. Furthermore, the numerous individual claims
raise different legal issues arising under different state
laws. Trying the claims together would require the Court to
decide ...