Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, CONSUMER PROTECTION—N.D. Ill.: Duplicative TCPA action against health services company shipped to California, (Jul 18, 2014)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

A duplicative class action in Illinois, pitting consumers against United Healthcare Services, Inc. for allegedly violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), was transferred to the federal district court in Sacramento. In granting United’s motion to transfer, the federal district court in Chicago decided that relocating the case to Sacramento, where an essentially identical and previously filed action is pending, would best promote judicial economy and prevent duplicative litigation in separate districts (Humphrey v. United Healthcare Services, Inc., July 16, 2014, Ellis, S.).

Duplicative litigation. Andy Humphrey filed a putative class action against United, alleging that the company violated the TCPA by calling him without his consent, through an automated telephone system, and using a recorded message. Both Humphrey and United agreed that this case and a duplicative case, Matlock v. United Healthcare Services, Inc., should be decided by the same court. However, they disagreed as to where the case should be litigated. Humphrey moved to stay the case until the multidistrict litigation panel rules on his motion to consolidate. Conversely, United moved to transfer the case to the federal district court in Sacramento, where Matlock is pending.

First-filed doctrine. In determining whether the first-filed doctrine may be applied in this case, the court considered the following factors: (1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) the location of the material events; (3) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (4) the convenience of the witnesses; and (5) the convenience of the parties. However, it found that none of the factors favored one party over the other. Specifically, the court determined that Humphrey’s choice of forum is not persuasive because the suit involves a nationwide class; there were no allegations or evidence the alleged violations took place in either Illinois or California; none of the other witnesses are located in Illinois or California; and there is no evidence one location is more convenient than the other. However, in weighing the interest of justice, the court found that transferring the case to Sacramento, where Matlock was filed first, best promotes judicial economy and prevents duplicative litigation in separate districts. Consequently, Humphrey’s motion to stay was denied and United’s motion to transfer was granted.

The case number is 14 C 1157.

Attorneys: Mark T. Lavery (Hyslip & Taylor) for Andy Humphrey. Mitchell E. Zamoff (Hogan Lovells US LLP) for United Healthcare Services, Inc.

Companies: United Healthcare Services, Inc.

Cases: ConsumerProtection IllinoisNews