Case 3:21-cv-02437-RS Document 17 Filed 06/22/21 Page 1 of 15
`
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`Kate T. Spelman (Cal. Bar No. 269109)
`kspelman@jenner.com
`Alexander M. Smith (Cal. Bar No. 295187)
`asmith@jenner.com
`633 West 5th Street Suite 3600
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-2054
`Telephone: (213) 239-5100
`Facsimile:
`(213) 239-5199
`
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`Dean N. Panos (admitted pro hac vice)
`dpanos@jenner.com
`353 North Clark Street
`Chicago, IL 60654-3456
`Phone: (312) 222-9350
`Facsimile: (312) 527-0484
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`The Kraft Heinz Company
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`AARON CLARKE and MICHELLE DEVERA,
`individually and on behalf of all others similarly
`situated,
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-02437-RS
`
`The Honorable Richard Seeborg
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY.
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT THE KRAFT HEINZ
`COMPANY’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES
`
`Hearing Date: August 12, 2021
`
`Hearing Time: 1:30 p.m.
`
`Courtroom: 3 (San Francisco)
`
`MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02437-RS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02437-RS Document 17 Filed 06/22/21 Page 2 of 15
`
`TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 12, 2021 at 1:30 p.m., or soon thereafter as the Court is
`available, in Courtroom 3 of the federal courthouse located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,
`CA 94102, Defendant The Kraft Heinz Company (“Kraft Heinz”), will, and hereby does, move the Court
`to transfer venue of this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.
`Kraft Heinz’s Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the following Memorandum
`of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Alexander M. Smith and exhibits attached thereto, any
`additional briefing on this subject (including Kraft Heinz’s reply brief), and the evidence and arguments
`that will be presented to the Court at the hearing on this matter.
`
`Dated: June 22, 2021
`
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`
`By: /s/ Dean N. Panos
` Dean N. Panos
`Attorney for Defendant
`The Kraft Heinz Company
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`i
`MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02437-RS
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02437-RS Document 17 Filed 06/22/21 Page 3 of 15
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................1
`BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................................................1
`ARGUMENT ...............................................................................................................................................3
`I.
`The Convenience of the Parties Analysis Supports Transfer...............................................3
`II.
`The Convenience of the Witnesses Analysis Also Supports Transfer. ................................5
`III.
`Transfer Is in the Interest of Justice. ....................................................................................6
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................9
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`ii
`MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02437-RS
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02437-RS Document 17 Filed 06/22/21 Page 4 of 15
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`A. J. Indus., Inc. v. U.S. District Court,
`503 F.2d 384 (9th Cir. 1974) .................................................................................................................. 6
`
`Aleisa v. Gojo Indus., Inc.,
`No. 20-1045, 2020 WL 6826475 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2020)............................................................... 5, 7
`
`Alert Enters., Inc. v. Johnson Controls, Inc.,
`No. 16-2900, 2016 WL 8710798 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2016) ................................................................. 4
`
`In re Apple, Inc.,
`602 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2010) .............................................................................................................. 5, 6
`
`Bloom v. Express Servs. Inc.,
`No. 11-9, 2011 WL 1481402 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2011) ....................................................................... 7
`
`Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court,
`137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) .................................................................................................................... 1, 8, 9
`
`Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
`No. 06-7023, 2009 WL 3713687 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 4, 2009) ..................................................................... 7
`
`Byerson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC,
`467 F. Supp. 2d 627 (E.D. Va. 2006) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`Carpenter v. PetSmart, Inc.,
`441 F. Supp. 3d 1028 (S.D. Cal. 2020) ................................................................................................... 9
`
`Catch Curve, Inc. v. Venali, Inc.,
`No. 05-4820, 2006 WL 4568799 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2006) .................................................................. 4
`
`Chambers v. Whirlpool Corp.,
`980 F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 2020) .................................................................................................................. 4
`
`Elward v. Electrolux Home Prod., Inc.,
`264 F. Supp. 3d 877 (N.D. Ill. 2017) ...................................................................................................... 7
`
`Ferens v. John Deere Co.,
`494 U.S. 516 (1990) ................................................................................................................................ 6
`
`In re Funeral Consumers Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 05-1804, 2005 WL 2334362 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2005) ................................................................. 6
`
`Griggs v. Credit Sols. of Am., Inc.,
`No. 09-1776, 2010 WL 2653474 (E.D. Mo. June 29, 2010) .................................................................. 5
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`iii
`MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02437-RS
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02437-RS Document 17 Filed 06/22/21 Page 5 of 15
`
`Jolly v. Purdue Pharma L.P.,
`No. 05-1452, 2005 WL 2439197 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2005) .................................................................. 6
`
`Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc.,
`211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000) .............................................................................................................. 3, 4
`
`Keene v. McKesson Corp.,
`No. 12-5924, 2015 WL 9257949 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2015) .............................................................. 3, 7
`
`King-Scott v. Univ. Med. Pharm. Corp.,
`No, 09-2512, 2010 WL 1815431 (S.D. Cal. May 6, 2010) .................................................................... 4
`
`Lee White Toyota, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp.,
`No. 93-166, 1993 WL 338884 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 1993) ......................................................................... 7
`
`Lou v. Belzberg,
`834 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1987) .................................................................................................................. 5
`
`McCormack v. Safeway Stores, Inc.,
`No. 12-4377, 2012 WL 5948965 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2012) ................................................................. 4
`
`In re McDonald’s French Fries Litig.,
`503 F. Supp. 2d 953 (N.D. Ill. 2007) ...................................................................................................... 7
`
`Merrill Iron & Steel, Inc. v. Yonkers Contracting Co.,
`No. 05-104, 2005 WL 1181952 (W.D. Wis. May 18, 2005) .................................................................. 9
`
`Metz v. U.S. Life Ins. Co.,
`674 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (C.D. Cal. 2009) .............................................................................................. 4, 5
`
`Park v. Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc.,
`964 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2013) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`Peroutka v. Yeti Coolers, LLC,
`No. 18-6827, 2020 WL 1283148 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2020) .................................................................. 8
`
`Preston v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`No. 17-3549, 2017 WL 5001447 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2017) ..................................................................... 8
`
`Puri v. Hearthside Food Solutions,
`No. 11-8675, 2011 WL 6257182 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2011) .................................................................. 7
`
`Rabinowitz v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.,
`No. 14-801, 2014 WL 5422576, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2014) ......................................................... 7
`
`Schlesinger v. Collins,
`No. 19-3483, 2019 WL 4674396 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2019) ................................................................. 4
`
`Van Dusen v. Barrack,
`376 U.S. 612 (1964) ................................................................................................................................ 3
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`iv
`MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02437-RS
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02437-RS Document 17 Filed 06/22/21 Page 6 of 15
`
`Walters v. Famous Transports, Inc.,
`488 F. Supp. 3d 930 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ................................................................................................ 3, 7
`
`Wenokur v. AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co.,
`No. 17-00165, 2017 WL 4357916 (D. Ariz. Oct. 2, 2017) ..................................................................... 9
`
`Williams v. Yamaha Motor Co.,
`851 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................................ 8
`
`In re Yahoo! Inc.,
`No. 07-3125, 2008 WL 707405 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2008) .................................................................... 5
`
`Zut v. Harrah’s Entm’t, Inc.,
`No. 13-2372, 2013 WL 5442282 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2013) ................................................................. 6
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1391 ........................................................................................................................................... 3
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404 ............................................................................................................................... 1, 3, 4, 6
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`v
`MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02437-RS
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02437-RS Document 17 Filed 06/22/21 Page 7 of 15
`
`INTRODUCTION
` This lawsuit is one of two nationwide class actions premised on The Kraft Heinz Company’s
`alleged failure to disclose the presence of “ortho-phthalates” in its iconic Kraft Macaroni & Cheese
`products. The other lawsuit, Stuve v. Kraft Heinz Company, is pending in the Northern District of Illinois,
`where Kraft Heinz maintains its global co-headquarters and where key witnesses and documents are
`located. Permitting both actions to proceed simultaneously in two different districts will needlessly expend
`judicial resources, inconvenience the parties, and potentially lead to inconsistent rulings involving virtually
`identical putative classes—the very results 28 U.S.C. § 1404 is intended to avert. Accordingly, Kraft Heinz
`respectfully requests that this Court transfer venue of this action to the Northern District of Illinois.
`In contrast to this District, which has virtually no nexus to the conduct alleged in the Complaint,
`the Northern District of Illinois is the most logical location for this case. It is the district where Kraft Heinz
`and its counsel are located. It is also the district where the challenged manufacturing and marketing
`decisions were made. And it is one of only two districts in which Kraft Heinz is subject to general personal
`jurisdiction—which obviates any challenge Kraft Heinz might assert in this action to the exercise of
`personal jurisdiction over the claims of non-resident class members. See generally Bristol-Myers Squibb
`Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017). It makes far more sense to litigate this case in the Northern
`District of Illinois than in this Court, and Plaintiffs and their counsel will not suffer any conceivable
`prejudice if this case is transferred. This Court should grant Kraft Heinz’s motion to transfer.
`BACKGROUND
`Kraft Heinz manufactures Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, one of America’s most well-known foods.
`Although Kraft Heinz manufactures many varieties of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, each version consists of
`macaroni noodles and a packet of cheese powder. In a matter of minutes, a consumer can boil the noodles,
`mix them with milk and butter and the cheese packet, and serve his or her family a delicious, kid-pleasing
`meal. It is a tasty, inexpensive, convenient, and familiar comfort food that millions of children and adults
`across America have enjoyed for generations.
`According to Plaintiffs, however, “[i]ndependent testing commissioned by the Coalition for Safer
`Food Processing & Packaging” (the “Coalition”) in 2017 revealed that the powdered cheese used in several
`varieties of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese contains phthalates, which Plaintiffs characterize as a harmful
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`1
`MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02437-RS
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02437-RS Document 17 Filed 06/22/21 Page 8 of 15
`
`substance that enters the food supply through processing equipment and other contact materials.1 Compl.
`¶¶ 26-27; see also id. ¶¶ 9-25 (describing purported health effects associated with phthalates). In light of
`the purported presence of phthalates, Plaintiffs allege that Kraft Macaroni & Cheese is “unsafe and
`defective” and that Kraft Heinz “failed to disclose material facts” about the products. Id. ¶¶ 46, 54.
`Based on those allegations, Plaintiffs assert two causes of action: (1) breach of the implied warranty
`of merchantability (see id. ¶¶ 40-51); and (2) common-law fraud (see id. ¶¶ 52-56). Plaintiffs assert both
`claims on behalf of a putative nationwide class of consumers who purchased Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, as
`well as a putative California subclass. See id. ¶¶ 32-33.
`Notably, Plaintiffs are not the only parties who have sued Kraft Heinz based on the purported
`presence of phthalates in Kraft Macaroni & Cheese. Another Plaintiff, Gabrielle Stuve, sent Kraft Heinz
`a demand letter on March 6, 2021—approximately a month before Plaintiffs filed this action—in which
`they threatened a similar lawsuit premised on the alleged presence of phthalates in Kraft Macaroni &
`Cheese. See Smith Decl. Ex. A. On April 6, 2021, exactly a month after they sent that letter and a day
`after Plaintiffs filed this action, Ms. Stuve and another plaintiff, Jessica Nicodemo, filed a putative class
`action against Kraft Heinz in the Northern District of Illinois. See Ex. B. Relying on the same report from
`the Coalition, the Stuve plaintiffs assert that Kraft Macaroni & Cheese is “adulterated,” that Kraft Heinz
`unlawfully fails to disclose the presence of phthalates, and that the presence of phthalates renders various
`claims on the labeling of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese misleading. See id. And like Plaintiffs here, the Stuve
`plaintiffs assert those claims—which include claims under Florida, Illinois, and New York consumer fraud
`statutes, as well as common-law claims for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment—on behalf of a
`putative nationwide class of consumers. See id.
`
`1 Kraft Heinz expressly denies the allegations of Plaintiffs’ complaint, denies that any of its products are
`mislabeled in any way, and denies that the amount of phthalates present in its products are associated with
`any harmful health effects whatsoever. Indeed, even assuming that the cheese powder in Kraft Mac &
`Cheese contains 2.5 milligrams of all phthalates per kilogram (the high end of the range Plaintiffs suggest,
`see Compl. ¶ 25), a consumer would need to eat hundreds of servings of Kraft Mac & Cheese every single
`day to reach the levels at which the State of California has concluded that there is no increased risk of
`cancer or reproductive toxicity.
`
`2
`MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02437-RS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02437-RS Document 17 Filed 06/22/21 Page 9 of 15
`
`ARGUMENT
`“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer
`any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought . . . .” 28 U.S.C. §
`1404(a). This statute aims to “prevent the waste of time, energy and money and to protect litigants,
`witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376
`U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
`Courts have “discretion to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an individualized, case-by-
`case consideration of convenience and fairness.” Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th
`Cir. 2000) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “The statute defines three factors that the Court
`must consider: the convenience of the parties, the convenience of the witnesses, and the interests of justice.”
`Keene v. McKesson Corp., No. 12-5924, 2015 WL 9257949, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2015). Although
`courts have articulated varying lists of factors that bear on the Section 1404(a) analysis, those factors
`typically include “(1) plaintiff’s choice of forum, (2) convenience of the parties, (3) convenience of the
`witnesses, (4) ease of access to the evidence, (5) familiarity of each forum with the applicable law, (6)
`feasibility of consolidation with other claims, (7) any local interest in the controversy, and (8) the relative
`court congestion and time of trial in each forum.” Walters v. Famous Transps., Inc., 488 F. Supp. 3d 930,
`936 (N.D. Cal. 2020); accord Jones, 211 F.3d at 498-99 (similar list of factors).
`It is beyond dispute that this action “might have been brought” in the Northern District of Illinois,
`where Kraft Heinz maintains its global co-headquarters and where personal jurisdiction and venue are
`unquestionably proper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). And as set forth in more detail below, the Section
`1404(a) factors all weigh strongly in favor of transferring venue to the Northern District of Illinois.
`I.
`The Convenience of the Parties Analysis Supports Transfer.
` The Northern District of Illinois is much more convenient for Kraft Heinz than the Northern
`District of California. Contrary to the jurisdictional allegations in the Complaint (see Compl. ¶ 5), Kraft
`Heinz is a Delaware corporation that is co-headquartered in Chicago, Illinois and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
`Although Kraft Macaroni & Cheese is distributed and sold in California, Plaintiffs acknowledge that Kraft
`Heinz sells Kraft Macaroni & Cheese throughout the United States and does not specifically target its
`marketing, advertising, or sale of the products toward the Northern District of California. See Compl. ¶ 5.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`3
`MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02437-RS
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02437-RS Document 17 Filed 06/22/21 Page 10 of 15
`
`The “ease of access to sources of proof” also weighs in favor of transfer. Jones, 211 F.3d at 499.
`As the defendant in a consumer class action, the burden of discovery, including document production, will
`disproportionately fall on Kraft Heinz. See generally Chambers v. Whirlpool Corp., 980 F.3d 645, 665
`(9th Cir. 2020) (taking note of “the asymmetrical nature of discovery in class actions”). “Although
`developments in electronic conveyance have reduced the cost of document transfer somewhat, costs of
`litigation can still be substantially lessened if the venue is in the district in which most of the documentary
`evidence is stored.” Park v. Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc., 964 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1095 (N.D. Cal. 2013);
`see also Schlesinger v. Collins, No. 19-3483, 2019 WL 4674396, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2019)
`(“A[l]though the ease of electronic discovery reduces the importance of this factor, costs of litigation can
`still be substantially lessened if the venue is in the district in which most of the documentary evidence is
`stored.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
`While Plaintiffs will likely argue that their decision to file suit in this District weighs in favor of
`denying transfer, courts have made clear that Plaintiffs’ choice of forum is “not dispositive.”2 Alert Enters.,
`Inc. v. Johnson Controls, Inc., No. 16-2900, 2016 WL 8710798, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2016). And
`Plaintiffs’ choice of forum is entitled to especially little weight for two separate reasons:
`First, Plaintiffs’ chosen forum “lacks any significant contact with the activities giving rise to the
`litigation.” Catch Curve, Inc. v. Venali, Inc., No. 05-4820, 2006 WL 4568799, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27,
`2006); see also Metz v. U.S. Life Ins. Co., 674 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1146 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (noting that
`“[d]eference to the plaintiff’s choice of venue” is “diminished” if “the operative facts have not occurred
`within the forum” and “the subject matter of the litigation is not substantially connected to the forum”)
`(citation omitted). Here, Kraft Heinz’s advertising and marketing of its macaroni and cheese products—
`the conduct at issue in this litigation—took place at its headquarters in Chicago. That fact, along with the
`
`2 See also, e.g., McCormack v. Safeway Stores, Inc., No. 12-4377, 2012 WL 5948965, at *4 (N.D. Cal.
`Nov. 28, 2012) (“[A]lthough Plaintiffs’ choice of forum should be given weight when deciding to grant a
`motion to change venue, a fundamental principle underpinning the § 1404(a) analysis is that litigation
`should proceed in that place where the case finds its center of gravity.”) (citations and internal quotation
`marks omitted); King-Scott v. Univ. Med. Pharm. Corp., No, 09-2512, 2010 WL 1815431, at *2 (S.D. Cal.
`May 6, 2010) (noting that the plaintiff’s choice of forum is “not dispositive of the § 1404(a) issue and
`cannot be used to completely bar transfer of venue where, as here, substantial judicial resources will be
`saved and the fear of inconsistent outcomes will be abated by transferring venue”).
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`4
`MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02437-RS
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02437-RS Document 17 Filed 06/22/21 Page 11 of 15
`
`absence of any conduct specifically directed toward this District, weighs in favor of transfer.3 See, e.g., In
`re Apple, Inc., 602 F.3d 909, 914 (8th Cir. 2010) (granting mandamus petition, transferring case to Northern
`District of California, and finding that “alleged misconduct originated from the Cupertino headquarters,
`where many of Apple’s attorneys with a role in enforcing intellectual property rights are located”).
`Second, “the Ninth Circuit like other courts, has noted that the weight to be given the plaintiffs
`choice of forum is discounted where the action is a class action.” Metz, 674 F. Supp. 2d at 1146 (citation
`and internal quotation marks omitted); see Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987) (“[W]hen
`an individual brings a derivative suit or represents a class, the named plaintiff’s choice of forum is given
`less weight.”). Because Plaintiffs purport to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased
`Kraft Macaroni & Cheese (see Compl. ¶ 32), their choice of forum is entitled to significantly less weight.
`II.
`The Convenience of the Witnesses Analysis Also Supports Transfer.
` As is typically the case in consumer class actions, the majority of the witnesses in this case will be
`current and former Kraft Heinz employees, who reside near its headquarters in the Northern District of
`Illinois. Indeed, the Kraft Heinz marketing, research and development, corporate quality, and other teams
`who support Kraft Macaroni & Cheese are based in Chicago and its suburbs. See, e.g., Aleisa, 2020 WL
`6826475, at *2 (“Because the gravamen of this case is whether Defendant made false and misleading
`statements in its advertising, Defendant’s employees responsible for the creation and approval of these
`advertisements will be key witnesses as will Defendant’s scientists who can testify to Purell’s development
`and clinical testing.”); Griggs v. Credit Sols. of Am., Inc., No. 09-1776, 2010 WL 2653474, at *3 (E.D.
`Mo. June 29, 2010) (holding, in similar class action, that “it appears likely that the vast majority of relevant
`witness testimony will come from Defendant’s current and former employees, and that transfer would
`therefore make this litigation more convenient for those witnesses”).
`
`3 See also, e.g., In re Yahoo! Inc., No. 07-3125, 2008 WL 707405, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2008) (“[T]his
`case turns on the allegedly false public statements and the decisions made by Yahoo!’s senior management,
`which indisputably occurred at Yahoo!’s headquarters.”); Aleisa v. Gojo Indus., Inc., No. 20-1045, 2020
`WL 6826475, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2020) (“The conduct giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims are also more
`closely tied to the Northern District of Ohio because they arise out of Defendant’s marketing and
`advertising strategies – conduct that originated and occurred in the Northern District of Ohio. While
`Plaintiffs Aleisa and Jurkiewicz purchased Purell in this district, that does not outweigh the fact that
`Defendant’s alleged false and misleading statements occurred in the Northern District of Ohio.”).
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`5
`MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02437-RS
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02437-RS Document 17 Filed 06/22/21 Page 12 of 15
`
`If those witnesses were required to travel to the Northern District of California, Kraft Heinz “would
`likely incur expenses for airfare, meals and lodging, and losses in productivity from time spent away from
`work.” In re Apple, Inc., 602 F.3d at 913; see also In re Funeral Consumers Antitrust Litig., No. 05-1804,
`2005 WL 2334362, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2005) (“Even where a witness is an employee of a party and
`will be paid, the disruption is still a hard fact. The expenses of transportation, housing and meals, even if
`borne by a party, are nonetheless authentic outlays.”). Further, Kraft Heinz’s “witnesses will suffer the
`‘personal costs associated with being away from work, family, and community.’” In re Apple, Inc., 602
`F.3d at 913 (citation omitted). Transfer to the Northern District of Illinois would “significantly
`minimize[]” these costs. Id. at 914. And to the extent it would minimize inconvenience, Kraft Heinz is
`willing to take Plaintiffs’ depositions in California.
`III.
`Transfer Is in the Interest of Justice.
`“In determining whether the interests of justice favor transfer, courts look primarily at
`considerations of judicial economy . . . .” Zut v. Harrah’s Entm’t, Inc., No. 13-2372, 2013 WL 5442282,
`at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2013). When two substantially similar cases are pending in different districts,
`judicial economy suggests that those cases should proceed together in the same venue. Indeed, “[t]o permit
`a situation in which two cases involving precisely the same issues are simultaneously pending in different
`District Courts leads to the wastefulness of time, energy and money that § 1404(a) was designed to
`prevent.” Ferens v. John Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516, 531 (1990) (citation omitted); see also Jolly v. Purdue
`Pharma L.P., No. 05-1452, 2005 WL 2439197, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2005) (“The pendency of related
`actions in the transferee forum is a significant factor in considering the interest of justice factor.”) (citing
`A. J. Indus., Inc. v. U.S. District Court, 503 F.2d 384, 389 (9th Cir. 1974)).
`Judicial economy favors having this lawsuit and the Stuve action heard in the same venue, as both
`cases assert similar claims on behalf of virtually identical nationwide classes. It would be significantly
`more efficient to have one court decide both lawsuits, which implicate similar legal and factual issues, will
`require similar discovery, and will involve similar motion practice. Allowing these cases to proceed in
`two separate courts would also raise the risk that the courts would reach inconsistent results in cases
`involving overlapping class members. Allowing both this lawsuit and Stuve to proceed “in a single district
`would avoid inefficient duplication of efforts in judicial proceedings as well as the danger of inconsistent
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`6
`MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02437-RS
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02437-RS Document 17 Filed 06/22/21 Page 13 of 15
`
`results.” Keene, 2015 WL 9257949, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2015) (citation omitted); see also Puri v.
`Hearthside Food Solutions, No. 11-8675, 2011 WL 6257182, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2011) (“Litigation
`of related claims in the same tribunal is strongly favored because it facilitates efficient, economical and
`expeditious pre-trial proceedings and discovery and avoid[s] duplicitous litigation and inconsistent
`results.”); Byerson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 467 F. Supp. 2d 627, 636 (E.D. Va. 2006) (transferring
`case “to avoid any risk of inconsistent rulings on class action issues, such as composition of classes and
`sub-classes”).
`The fact that this case involves issues of California laws should not change the analysis, as
`Plaintiffs’ claims rest on the exact same factual allegations—including the report issued by the Coalition—
`as the claims in the Stuve action. Even if the causes of action in both lawsuits differ, both lawsuits hinge
`on the same fundamental legal issues—whether the supposed presence of phthalates renders Kraft
`Macaroni & Cheese “adulterated” and its labeling false or misleading. And, in any event, “[f]ederal courts
`have equal ability to address claims arising out of state law.” Bloom v. Express Servs. Inc., No. 11-9, 2011
`WL 1481402, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2011); see also Rabinowitz v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No. 14-
`801, 2014 WL 5422576, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2014) (noting that “[d]istrict courts regularly apply the
`law of states other than the forum state” and that “this factor is to be accorded little weight . . . because
`federal courts are deemed capable of applying the substantive law of other states”) (citations and internal
`quotation marks omitted). Courts in the Northern District of Illinois regularly address and rule on the
`claims Plaintiffs have asserted in this action under California law.4 There is no doubt that a court in the
`Northern District of Illinois could capably do so in this case.
` Moreover, the Northern District of Illinois has an interest in adjudicating disputes involving
`businesses headquartered there. See, e.g., Walters, 488 F. Supp. 3d at 941 (collecting cases and stating that
`“courts have noted that there is in fact a local interest . . . in deciding matters pertaining to businesses that
`are headquartered in the state”); Bloom, 2011 WL 1481402, at *5 (“Oklahoma has an interest in deciding
`
`4 See, e.g., Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 06-7023, 2009 WL 3713687, at *2-3 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 4,
`2009) (Song-Beverly Act claims); Elward v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., 264 F. Supp. 3d 877, 893-94
`(N.D. Ill. 2017) (implied warranty and Song-Beverly Act claims); In re McDonald’s French Fries Litig.,
`503 F. Supp. 2d 953, 957 (N.D. Ill. 2007) (Commercial Code § 2314 claim); Lee White Toyota, Inc. v. Gen.
`Elec. Cap. Corp., No. 93-166, 1993 WL 338884, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 1993) (common-law fraud claim).
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`7
`MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02437-RS
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02437-RS Document 17 Filed 06/22/21 Page 14 of 15
`
`controversies involving businesses headquartered there, and that employ a substantial number of its
`citizens.”); Aleisa