Case 3:21-cv-02437-RS Document 26 Filed 07/16/21 Page 1 of 17
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`L. Timothy Fisher (State Bar No. 191626)
`1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`Telephone: (925) 300-4455
`Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
`E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`AARON CLARKE and MICHELLE DEVERA,
`individually and on behalf of all others similarly
`situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-02437-RS
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER
`
`Hearing Date: August 26, 2021
`Hearing Time: 1:30 p.m.
`Courtroom: 3
`
`Hon. Richard Seeborg
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER; 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 26 Filed 07/16/21 Page 2 of 17
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PAGE(S)
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................ 2 
`DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO CARRY ITS HEAVY BURDEN TO
`SUPPORT TRANSFER OF ACTION FROM THE NORTHERN
`DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ............................................................................................... 3 
`The Defendant Cannot Claim the Case “Might Have Been Brought”
`A. 
`in the Northern District of Illinois Without Acknowledging it “Might
`Have Been Brought” in the Northern District of California ....................................... 3 
`Transfer of Venue is Only Appropriate Where the Defendant Makes
`a Strong Showing that the Balance of Conveniences Clearly Favors
`Transfer ....................................................................................................................... 3 
`Transfer from this Court to the Northern District of Illinois Would
`Not Promote the Convenience of Parties or Witnesses, or Improve
`Access to Documentary Evidence .............................................................................. 5 
`Plaintiffs Reside and Purchased Defendant’s Products Here,
`1. 
`and Thus Their Choice of Forum is Entitled to Deference ............................ 5 
`Transfer Would Merely Shift, Rather than Eliminate, the
`Burden on Witnesses Who May Be Required to Travel to
`Attend Trial .................................................................................................... 6 
`Given Current Technology, the Location of Documentary
`Evidence in Illinois Does Not Warrant Transfer ............................................ 7 
`Transfer Would Not Promote the Interests of Justice ................................................ 8 
`This Court is Better Suited to Adjudicate Plaintiff’s Claims,
`1. 
`Which are Brought on Behalf of a California-Only Class ............................. 9 
`California Has a Strong Interest in the Enforcement of its
`Laws to Protect its Residents ........................................................................ 10 
`Transfer at this Stage in the Proceedings Would Reward
`Defendant’s Delay Tactics and Cause Substantial Further
`Delay ............................................................................................................. 11 
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 11 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`
`
`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
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER; CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02437-RS
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02437-RS Document 26 Filed 07/16/21 Page 3 of 17
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`CASES 
`Allen v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
`2013 WL 4737421 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2013) ................................................................................. 6
`Allstar Mktg. Grp., Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Your Store Online, Ltd. Liab. Co.,
`666 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (C.D. Cal. 2009) .................................................................................. 10, 11
`Alul v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`2016 WL 7116934 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2016) ..................................................................... 3, 5, 6, 7
`America Online, Inc. v. Superior Court of Alameda Count,
`108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 699 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) .................................................................................. 10
`Axis Reinsurance Co. v. Northrop Grumman Corp.,
`2018 WL 3326670 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2018) ............................................................................... 3
`Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp.,
`823 F. Supp. 2d 980 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .................................................................................... 3, 5, 8
`Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Shalala,
`125 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 1997) .......................................................................................................... 9
`Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Savage,
`611 F.2d 270 (9th Cir. 1979) .......................................................................................................... 4
`Daie v. Intel Corp.,
`2016 WL 641646 (N.D. Cal. Feb 18, 2016) ............................................................................... 5, 8
`David v. Alphin,
`2007 WL 39400 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2007) ....................................................................................... 8
`Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co.,
`805 F.2d 834 (9th Cir. 1986) .................................................................................................. 1, 5, 6
`Doe 1 v. AOL LLC,
`552 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................................... 10
`Dubose v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.,
`2017 WL 2775034 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2017) ................................................................................ 1
`Gherebi v. Bush,
`352 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................................................................................ 4
`Heartland Payment Sys., Inc. v. Mercury Payment Sys., LLC,
`2014 WL 5695051 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2014) ................................................................................. 8
`Heller Financial, Inc. v. Midway Powder Co., Inc.,
`883 F.2d 1286 (7th Cir. 1989) ...................................................................................................... 10
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER; CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02437-RS
`
`ii
`
`
`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 26 Filed 07/16/21 Page 4 of 17
`
`
`
`Hendricks v. StarKist Co.,
`2014 WL 1245880 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2014) ............................................................................... 7
`Hoffman v. Blaski,
`363 U.S. 335 (1960) ....................................................................................................................... 2
`Holliday v. Lifestyle Lift, Inc.,
`2010 WL 3910143 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2010) .................................................................................. 7
`In re Ferrero Litig.,
`768 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (S.D. Cal. 2011) .......................................................................................... 6
`Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc.,
`211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................. passim
`Lax v. Toyota Motor Corp.,
`65 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2014) ........................................................................... 4, 7
`Loan Payment Admin. LLC v. Hubanks,
`2015 WL 1245895 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2015) ............................................................................. 10
`MacDonald v. Ford Motor Co.,
`142 F. Supp. 3d 884 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .......................................................................................... 10
`Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Payless Shoesource, Inc.,
`2012 WL 3277222 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012) ................................................................................. 9
`Phillip Morris USA Inc. v. Shalabi,
`352 F. Supp. 2d 1067 (C.D. Cal. 2004) ........................................................................................ 10
`Qurio Holdings, Inc. v. DISH Network Corp.,
`2015 WL 4148962 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2015) .................................................................................. 8
`R.R. St. & Co. Inc. v. Transp. Ins. Co.,
`656 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2011) .......................................................................................................... 9
`Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc.,
`2006 WL 2131308 (E.D. Cal. July 27, 2006) ............................................................................... 10
`Reyes v. Bakery & Confectionery Union & Indus. Int’l Pension Fund,
`2015 WL 1738269 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2015) .............................................................................. 8, 9
`Rolling v. E*Trade Secs., LLC,
`756 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ...................................................................................... 5, 8
`Secs. Inv. Protector Corp. v. Vigman,
`764 F.2d 1309 (9th Cir. 1985) ........................................................................................................ 5
`Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.,
`487 U.S. 22 (1988) ......................................................................................................................... 2
`Strigliabotti v. Franklin Res., Inc.,
`2004 WL 2254556 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2004) .............................................................................. 4, 5
`
` MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL; CASE NO. 3:18-CV-05758-JST
`
`iii
`
`
`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 26 Filed 07/16/21 Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`True Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. McKesson Corp.,
`2013 WL 6000539 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2013) ............................................................................... 4
`Turnage v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.,
`2013 WL 2950836 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2013) .............................................................................. 11
`Van Dusen v. Barrack,
`376 U.S. 612 (1964) ................................................................................................................... 2, 4
`Van Slyke v. Capital One Bank,
`503 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ................................................................................ 6, 7, 10
`Vu v. Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc.,
`602 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (N.D. Cal. 2009) .......................................................................................... 4
`Wade v. Indus. Finding Corp.,
`1992 WL 207926 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 1992) .................................................................................. 5
`Williams v. Bowman,
`157 F. Supp. 2d 1103 (N.D. Cal. 2001) .......................................................................................... 2
`
`STATUTES 
`28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) ....................................................................................................................... 3
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ........................................................................................................................ 2, 4
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(b) ............................................................................................................................ 3
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES 
`Charles Alan Wright, et al., Fed Prac. & Proc. (4th ed. 2013) ..................................................... 4, 11
`
` MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL; CASE NO. 3:18-CV-05758-JST
`
`iv
`
`
`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 26 Filed 07/16/21 Page 6 of 17
`
`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.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs Aaron Clarke and Michelle deVera (“Plaintiffs”), hereby oppose The Kraft Heinz
`
`Company’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Transfer Venue (ECF No. 17) (hereinafter, the “Mot.”).
`Defendant’s motion is nothing more than a veiled attempt to move this case to the Northern
`District of Illinois, where Defendant believes it will receive a more favorable interpretation of the
`law. However, “[i]t is not enough for the defendant to merely show that it prefers another forum,
`and transfer will also not be allowed if the result is merely to shift the inconvenience from one
`party to another.” Dubose v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 2017 WL 2775034, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June
`27, 2017) (internal citations omitted). That is the case here. Defendant seeks to upturn Plaintiffs’
`choice of forum and decision to file in the Northern District of California. But to overcome
`Plaintiffs’ choice, Defendant “must make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting
`the plaintiff’s choice of forum.” Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834,
`843 (9th Cir. 1986) (emphasis added). As Plaintiffs explain below, Defendant has clearly not met
`its burden.
`Defendant argues that venue should be transferred to the Northern District of Illinois
`because a similar, later-filed lawsuit is pending there,1 and because Defendant maintains a
`headquarters in that District and houses relevant documents and witnesses in that District. Mot. at
`1. If such a “showing” were enough for a transfer to be granted, a plaintiff would need to file
`where a defendant is headquartered or otherwise allow the defendant to pick and choose where it
`would rather be sued. In actuality, the standard is far more demanding.
`Ultimately, this case illustrates the risk that the transfer rule presents unless the “strong
`showing” is made by a defendant: forum shopping by the defendant at the expense of a plaintiff’s
`right to file their claims where they choose.
`
`1 Notably, the instant matter is the first-filed case, and Plaintiffs’ FAC only seeks claims on behalf
`of a California class. See, e.g., ECF No. 24. Thus, there is no overlap between this case and the
`Stuve matter pending in Illinois. See Stuve v. The Kraft Heinz Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-01845,
`ECF No. 25, ¶ 44 (claims brought on behalf of “All persons who… purchased Kraft Mac & Cheese
`Products in Florida, New York, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
`Missouri, New Jersey and Washington”). Additionally, Plaintiffs’ counsel and counsel for Stuve
`have agreed to coordinate discovery efforts to minimize any purported burdens on Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER; CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02437-RS
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02437-RS Document 26 Filed 07/16/21 Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`“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). The purpose of § 1404(a) is 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) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
`A motion for transfer lies within the broad discretion of the district court and must be determined
`on an individualized basis. See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000)
`(“Under § 1404(a), the district court has discretion ‘to adjudicate motions for transfer according to
`an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.’”) (quoting Stewart
`Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988)).
`Courts considering transfer must engage in a two-step analysis. First, courts determine
`whether the action could have been brought in the target district. Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335,
`343-44 (1960). Second, courts “weigh in the balance a number of case-specific factors” to
`undertake an “individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.” Stewart
`Org., 487 U.S. at 29 (second quoting Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at 616). The factors the Court should
`consider 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 of other claims, (7) any local interest in the
`controversy, and (8) the relative court congestion and time of trial in
`each forum.
`Williams v. Bowman, 157 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2001); see also Jones, 211 F.3d at
`498-99. The moving party bears the burden of showing that the transferee district is the more
`appropriate forum for the action. Jones, 211 F.3d at 499.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER; CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02437-RS
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`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 26 Filed 07/16/21 Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`III. DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO CARRY ITS HEAVY BURDEN TO SUPPORT
`TRANSFER OF ACTION FROM THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`A. The Defendant Cannot Claim the Case “Might Have Been
`Brought” in the Northern District of Illinois Without
`Acknowledging it “Might Have Been Brought” in the Northern
`District of California
` “To determine whether venue is proper in a transferee district, subject matter jurisdiction,
`personal jurisdiction, and venue must be proper.” Axis Reinsurance Co. v. Northrop Grumman
`Corp., 2018 WL 3326670, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2018). Although Plaintiffs do not disagree
`that the case might have been brought in the Northern District of Illinois, Defendant’s analysis
`characterizes the Northern District of Illinois as the only proper place for the case to have been
`filed. This is simply not the case. Plaintiffs sufficiently allege in the Amended Complaint that
`they purchased Defendant’s product in the Northern District of California, where other consumers
`are also known to purchase the products. FAC ¶ 8. That is all that is required to file the claim in
`the Northern District of California pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).
`
`B.
`
`Transfer of Venue Is Only Appropriate Where the Defendant
`Makes a Strong Showing that the Balance of Conveniences
`Clearly Favors Transfer
`A court in its discretion may transfer an action to another district where a plaintiff could
`have properly brought the action “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, [or] in the interest
`of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(b). “The Ninth Circuit requires that courts consider a variety of
`factors in determining whether to transfer an action.” Alul v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 2016 WL
`7116934, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2016) (citing Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498
`(9th Cir. 2000)). Under Jones, the relevant factors 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 of other claims,
`(7) any local interest in the controversy, and (8) the relative court congestion and time of trial in
`each forum.” Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., 823 F. Supp. 2d 980, 993 (N.D. Cal. 2011).
`“District courts have broad discretion to consider convenience and justice factors on a case-by-case
`basis.” Alul, 2016 WL 7116934, at *2.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER; CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02437-RS
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02437-RS Document 26 Filed 07/16/21 Page 9 of 17
`
`
`
`The transfer analysis is “individualized,” requiring “case-by-case consideration of
`convenience and fairness[.]” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964). While the analysis
`is individualized and courts have “broad discretion” in ruling, courts are unanimous in holding that
`transfer “‘should not be freely granted.’” See, e.g., Vu v. Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc., 602 F. Supp.
`2d 1151, 1155 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (“broad discretion” in denying transfer) (citing Jones, 211 F.3d at
`498); Gherebi v. Bush, 352 F.3d 1278, 1303 (9th Cir. 2003) (“‘should not be freely granted’”).
`Plaintiffs, rather, are “the master of their complaint” and have “the choice of selecting a forum[.]”
`The propriety of venue in both districts is undisputed. The only question is whether transfer is
`appropriate given the “convenience of parties and witnesses” and/or the “interest of justice.” 28
`U.S.C. § 1404(a).
`“The burden is on the party seeking transfer to show that when [the Jones] factors are
`applied, the balance of convenience clearly favors transfer.” Lax v. Toyota Motor Corp., 65 F.
`Supp. 3d 772, 776 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2014) (citing Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v.
`Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979)). Defendant’s burden is a heavy one – and this is not
`accidental. If the burden is set too low, “the transfer statute itself makes forum shopping by
`defendants possible, which is …undesirable.” True Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. McKesson Corp.,
`2013 WL 6000539, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2013); see also Charles Alan Wright, et al., Fed
`Prac. & Proc. § 3848 (4th ed. 2013) (“[S]etting the defendant’s burden … too low will encourage
`transfer motions, and the concomitant expenditure of litigation and judicial time and resources.”).
`Furthermore, “[i]t is not enough for the defendant to merely show that it prefers another forum, and
`transfer will also not be allowed if the result is merely to shift the inconvenience from one party to
`another.” Id. (citing Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 645-46 (1964). Thus, the motion for
`transfer must be denied if the balance of convenience is a “close call.” Strigliabotti v. Franklin
`Res., Inc., 2004 WL 2254556, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2004).
`Here, under the Ninth Circuit’s Jones factors, the balance of conveniences and interests of
`justice clearly favors the Plaintiffs, who reside in and purchased Defendant’s products in the
`Northern District of California. As detailed below, Defendant has failed to meet its burden to show
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER; CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02437-RS
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`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 26 Filed 07/16/21 Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`that the balance of conveniences clearly favors transfer, and the Court should deny the instant
`motion and allow this case to proceed without delay.
`
`C.
`
`Transfer from this Court to the Northern District of Illinois
`Would Not Promote the Convenience of Parties or Witnesses, or
`Improve Access to Documentary Evidence
`The first four factors identified by the Ninth Circuit, commonly referred to as the “private
`factors” or the “convenience factors” require the Court to balance the plaintiff’s choice of forum
`against the convenience to parties and witnesses and the ease of access to evidence. See Daie v.
`Intel Corp., 2016 WL 641646, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb 18, 2016) (citing Decker Coal Co. v.
`Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986)). “It is not appropriate to transfer a
`case on convenience grounds when the effect would be simply to shift the inconvenience from one
`party to another, especially when the plaintiff’s choice of forum has been made in good faith rather
`than as a matter of forum shopping.” Barnes & Noble, 823 F. Supp. 2d at 994. Plaintiffs’
`legitimate choice of forum in the district where they reside and purchased Defendant’s products
`weighs strongly against transfer, and the remaining convenience factors are neutral with respect to
`transfer.
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs Reside and Purchased Defendant’s Products
`Here, and Thus Their Choice of Forum is Entitled to
`Deference
`“A plaintiff’s choice of forum generally receives deference in a motion to transfer venue.”
`Rolling v. E*Trade Secs., LLC, 756 F. Supp. 2d 1179, 1185 (N.D. Cal. 2010). While it is true that
`in class actions, a plaintiff’s choice of forum is often accorded less weight, the Ninth Circuit has
`given weight to a class action plaintiff’s choice of forum where there is a “significant connection
`between the forum and the activities alleged in the complaint.” Strigliabotti, 2004 WL 2254556, at
`*3 (citing Wade v. Indus. Finding Corp., 1992 WL 207926, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 1992), and
`Secs. Inv. Protector Corp. v. Vigman, 764 F.2d 1309 (9th Cir. 1985) (internal citations omitted)).
`“Such deference is warranted because the named Plaintiffs, if they serve as class representatives,
`will bear a great deal of responsibility, while the other putative class members will not likely need
`to appear in this action.” Alul, 2016 WL 7116934, at *2 (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER; CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02437-RS
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02437-RS Document 26 Filed 07/16/21 Page 11 of 17
`
`Moreover, the entire putative class Plaintiffs seek to represent reside in California. FAC ¶ 36.2
`Having chosen to do substantial business here and sell its Products here, Defendant must live with
`potential liability here.
`Defendant has no real basis to claim inconvenience in this District or that the interests of
`the Northern District of Illinois, where it is headquartered, should be afforded primacy. As a
`national food manufacturer, Defendant must accept being hailed into any District without
`complaint. See, e.g., In re Ferrero Litig., 768 F. Supp. 2d 1074, 1080 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (“by
`choosing to market and sell [its product] nationwide, rather than just the [district where the
`company resides], Defendant exposed itself to the risk of being sued in the districts in which its
`product is sold”). Indeed, because Defendant operates its business nationally, the Northern District
`of Illinois “has no greater and no lesser relationship to Plaintiff[s’] claims than this one.” Allen v.
`ConAgra Foods, Inc., 2013 WL 4737421, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2013).
`
`2.
`
`Transfer Would Merely Shift, Rather than Eliminate, the
`Burden on Witnesses Who May Be Required to Travel to
`Attend Trial
`“The convenience of the parties, convenience of non-party witnesses, and access to
`evidence are all relevant factors in considering a motion to transfer.” Alul, 2016 WL 7116934, at
`*4. Nonetheless, a “defendant must make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting
`the plaintiff’s choice of forum.” Decker, 805 F.2d at 843. In evaluating convenience, the court
`“must keep in mind the distinction between parties versus witnesses, which can overlap.” Van
`Slyke v. Capital One Bank, 503 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1363 (N.D. Cal. 2007). “The convenience of
`non-party witnesses is a more important factor than the convenience of party witnesses.” Alul,
`2016 WL 7116934, at *4.
`In that regard, courts in this District have held that “the convenience of a litigant’s
`employee witnesses are [sic] entitled to little weight because litigants are able to compel their
`
`2 For this reason, Defendant’s argument that Plaintiffs’ choice of forum should be given
`“significantly less weight” because they purport to represent a nationwide class of consumers is
`incorrect. See Mot. at 5.
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER; CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02437-RS
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02437-RS Document 26 Filed 07/16/21 Page 12 of 17
`
`
`
`employees to testify at trial, regardless of forum.” Alul, 2016 WL 7116934, at *4 (quoting Lax, 65
`F. Supp. 3d at 779); accord Hendricks v. StarKist Co., 2014 WL 1245880, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar.
`25, 2014) (“Courts give less consideration to the convenience of party witnesses or witnesses
`employed by a party because these witnesses can be compelled by the parties to testify regardless
`of where the litigation will occur.”). Moreover, “[d]epositions are not a factor since they usually
`occur where witnesses reside anyway. Trial convenience is what matters.” Van Slyke, 503 F.
`Supp. 2d at 1363. Here, Plaintiffs will similarly agree that any of Defendant’s employee witnesses
`who reside in the Illinois area may be deposed there rather than in this District. Accordingly,
`Plaintiffs agree to conduct their 30(b)(6) depositions where those deponents reside, or remotely, if
`preferable to Defendant.
`Moreover, Defendant’s Motion ignores the significant burden on the named Plaintiffs in
`this action should the case be transferred out-of-district. “A lead plaintiff has important
`responsibilities in managing class actions. To send this case to [another district] would be a
`financial hardship on the California plaintiffs and would compromise lead plaintiffs’ ability to
`attend hearings.” Van Slyke, 503 F. Supp. 2d at 1363. Clearly, Defendant (a billion-dollar
`corporation) is far better able financially to travel than Plaintiffs.
`As Judge Tigar explained in Holliday v. Lifestyle Lift, Inc.:
`
`[I]t would be speculative for this Court to consider fairness and convenience to
`unnamed plaintiffs in as yet undetermined locations. While the Court entertains the
`possibility that class members might reside in districts closer to Michigan than to
`California, it is premature and misguided to ground a convenience decision on
`parties who may never need or wish to appear, or to assume the only “convenience”
`factor is distance.
`2010 WL 3910143, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2010). Accordingly, the Court rejected the defendant’s
`arguments and found that convenience did not favor transfer, despite the location of the
`defendant’s headquarters and employee witnesses in the transferee district. See id. at *7-8.
`
`3.
`
`Given Current Technology, the Location of Documentary
`Evidence in Illinois Does Not Warrant Transfer
`Defendant contends that the location of key documents in Illinois weighs in favor of
`transfer. Mot. at 1. To the contrary, however, “‘[w]ith technological advances in document
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER; CASE NO. 3:21-CV-02437-RS
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`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 26 Filed 07/16/21 Page 13 of 17
`
`
`
`storage and retrieval, transporting documents does not generally create a burden.’” Reyes v. Bakery
`& Confectionery Union & Indus. Int’l Pension Fund, 2015 WL 1738269, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9,
`2015) (quoting David v. Alphin, 2007 WL 39400, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2007); see also Qurio
`Holdings, Inc. v. DISH Network Corp., 2015 WL 4148962, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2015) (same);
`Heartland Payment Sys., Inc. v. Mercury Payment Sys., LLC, 2014 WL 5695051, at *3 (N.D. Cal.
`Nov. 4, 2014) (“[t]echnological advances in document storage and retrieval have greatly reduced
`the burden of transporting documents between districts.”). Given that most of the records at issue
`in this case are likely kept in electronic form, as well as the availability of e-filing, e-mail, and
`document transfer via services like Dropbox, it is unclear how Defendant would be burdened by
`litigating the case here in California as to documents maintained on servers in Illinois. See Rolling,
`756 F. Supp. 2d at 1187 (“Because evidence will be produced electronically, transfer will provide
`no greater access to evidence.”). Nowadays, when large files may be transferred instantly at low or
`no cost, this factor is neutral.
`
`D.
`Transfer Would Not Promote the Interests of Justice
`After considering the private factors, the Court must then look to the next four factors
`identified by the Ninth Circuit, referred to as the “public factors” or “the interests of justice,” which
`require the court to consider the familiarity of each forum with the applicable law, the feasibility of
`consolidation of other claims, any local interest in the controversy, and the relative court
`congestion and time of trial