Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court granted a transfer of venue to Texas federal court in a products liability case involving a pressure cooker that led to a user’s serious burn injuries.

Texas resident Waleska Cardoso Schell was preparing a meal using her Aldi Ambiano 6 in 1 Programmable Pressure Cooker. She suffered serious burns when the pressure cooker’s lid opened while the cooker was still under pressure and its scalding contents spilled out onto her. She sued Aldi, Inc., an Illinois corporation, in the Northern District of Illinois, alleging claims for products liability. The defendant moved to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a).

Granting the motion, the court found that §1404(a) provides that for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer a civil action to any other division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented. Citing case law, the court noted that factors relating to the issue of convenience include the plaintiff’s choice of forum, the location of material events, and the availability of and access to witnesses and sources of proof.

The court noted that many of the material events underlying the plaintiff’s claim took place in Texas, so this weighed in favor of transferring venue to the Eastern District of Texas. Regarding access to resources, the court said, this factor has become less significant due to modern electronic discovery practices, which include remote depositions and court hearings as well as videoconferencing. The court emphasized, however, that as between the two district courts, the time it took to get to trial after filing a lawsuit was significantly shorter in the Eastern District of Texas than in the Northern District of Illinois, and that this weighed heavily in favor of transferring the plaintiff’s lawsuit to the Texas court.

Considering the various public and private interests, the court concluded that granting the defendant’s motion to transfer venue was warranted.

Citation: Schell v. Aldi, Inc., 2022 WL 900212 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 28, 2022).