Leaking vodka bottles case refused state transfer

A lawsuit accusing a US bottling company of manufacturing “leaking vodka bottles” has been refused a transfer from a district court in Pennsylvania to Minnesota.

A vodka manufacturer is suing a bottle company alleging the latter firm created “leaking vodka bottles”

Pennsylvania-based business Swill Beverages – described by the judge as a fledgling vodka brand – filed a suit against the United States Distilled Products Company of Minnesota, which was contracted by Swill to bottle the brand’s signature gluten-free vodka.

The bottling company moved to transfer the lawsuit to a federal court in Minnesota, but the request was denied by judge Gene E.K. Pratter at the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Swill claims Distilled Products created “leaking vodka bottles and delivered those substandard bottles in nonconforming boxes to Swill’s customers”, reported the Pennsylvania Record.

Furthermore the firm marketed its vodka as “gluten-free” on assurances from Distilled Products, but later found out from the bottling company that the vodka may not actually be gluten-free and its production requirements were “too small”.

Thus, Swill argued its reputation with customers was damaged and is seeking compensation for more than US$400,000 for breach of contract by Distilled Products.

“Although the parties agreed at oral argument that any contract was entered into in Minnesota and that all of the bottling and packaging occurred there, the product in question was shipped to several locations, including to locations in the district,” said Pratter.

“Swill contends that the leaking bottles – key evidence in this case – remain in the locations to which they were shipped, and that customers who received these shipments are witnesses on both liability and damages.”

The court focused on the financial position of the two companies as the final deciding factor in refusing a transfer to Minnesota, though Pratter did consider who had more interest or applicable law in the case.

“Overall, some factors do weigh in favour of transfer, including defendant’s preference where the claim arose, and the potential application of Minnesota law,” Pratter continued. “However, those factors, even in combination, are not substantial enough to overcome the deference due to Swill’s choice of venue, especially given the relative financial positions of the two companies.

“Thus, the court will not transfer this action to the district of Minnesota.”