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.

Diaz-Lebel v. TD Bank USA, N.A.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

November 14, 2017

SARA DIAZ-LEBEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
TD BANK USA, N.A. and TARGET CORP., Defendants.

          Adam Herbert Weintraub, Esq. Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq. (pro hac vice) LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP Jarret L. Ellzey, Esq. (pro hac vice) HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP Aaron Siri, Esq. (pro hac vice) SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff

          Susan M. Leming, Esq. Jonathon L. Triantos, Esq. BROWN & CONNERY, LLP Brian Melendez, Esq. (pro hac vice) DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC Attorneys for Defendant

          OPINION

          JEROME B. SIMANDLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter is before the Court on the motion of Defendants TD Bank USA, N.A. and Target Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”) to change venue in a matter arising out of alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). (Docket Item 20.) The principal issue before the Court is whether the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of justice favor transfer of the action. In light of ongoing litigation in the District of Minnesota involving substantially-similar allegations, and for the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the motion and transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

         II. BACKGROUND

         A. This Action

         On March 9, 2017, Plaintiff Sara Diaz-Lebel (“Plaintiff”) filed a putative class action complaint against Defendant Target Corporation (“Target”) and TD Bank USA, N.A. (“TD Bank”) in the District of New Jersey. (Docket Item 1.) In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants conducted (and continue to conduct) wide-scale calling campaigns and repeatedly made unsolicited calls to consumers' telephones without consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.” (Id. at ¶¶ 2, 6.) Notably, “[a]t all times of the calls, Plaintiff did not have a Target REDcard [and] never had a Target REDcard.” (Id. at ¶ 36.) Thus, Plaintiff seeks to represent a “wrong number class” consisting of:

All persons in the United States whose (1) cellular telephone number has been called by Defendants; (2) more than once; (3) with an artificial or prerecorded voice and/or an automatic telephone dialing system; and (4) did not have a Target REDcard contract with Defendants, (5) from March 9, 2013 to the date that class notice was disseminated.

(Id. at ¶ 49.)

         According to the complaint, Plaintiff is a resident of Methuen, Massachusetts, Target is a corporation headquartered in Minnesota and doing business in New Jersey and nationwide, and TD Bank is a large national bank chain that maintains its principal office in Cherry Hill, New Jersey and, inter alia, “underwrites, funds, and owns Target Credit Card and Target MasterCard consumer receivables in the U.S.” (Id. at ¶¶ 6-9.) As relevant to this motion, Plaintiff avers that, “at all times relevant to this lawsuit, Defendant[s] conducted and continue[] to conduct business in [the District of New Jersey].” (Id.) Defendants acknowledge they conduct business in this District, but “deny that [either company] engaged in any transaction or occurrence in this judicial district with respect to this civil action.” (Docket Item 13 at ¶¶ 8-9.)

         B. The Garcia Action in the District of Minnesota

         On February 27, 2016, Israel Garcia, a Texas resident, filed a similar putative class action against Target (but not TD Bank) in the Southern District of Florida. Garcia v. Target Corp., Case No. 0:16-cv-20727-JEM (S.D. Fl.). On July 28, 2016, that action was transferred to the District of Minnesota on Target's unopposed motion. Id. (Docket Item 24).

         In his complaint, Mr. Garcia alleged that Target violated the TCPA by “making unauthorized automated telephone calls using an ATDS (‘robocalls') . . . to individuals who never provided consent to be called by [Target].” Id. (Docket Item 1 at ¶¶ 1, 12). Mr. Garcia sought to represent:

All persons in the United States and its territories who, within four years prior to the commencement of this litigation, received one or more telephone calls from Defendant on their cellular telephone through an automated telephone dialing system where the called party was not the same ...

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.