Case: 1:21-cv-04811 Document #: 31 Filed: 09/08/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:441
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`AARON CLARKE, et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 21-cv-02437-RS
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
`TRANSFER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`16
`
`
`
`This case arises from Plaintiffs’ allegation that Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, manufactured by
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`Defendant The Kraft Heinz Company (“Kraft”), contains harmful substances called phthalates.
`
`Kraft, which maintains a principal place of business in Chicago, now moves to transfer this action
`
`to the Northern District of Illinois where a substantially similar action is pending. For the reasons
`
`set forth below, the motion is granted.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`22
`
`
`
`This case was filed on April 5, 2021, one day before the action pending in the Northern
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`District of Illinois, Stuve v. The Kraft Heinz Company, No. 1:21-cv-01845. When Kraft moved to
`
`transfer this case on June 22, 2021, both actions purported to bring claims on behalf of a
`
`nationwide class. A few days before filing their opposition, however, Plaintiffs amended their
`
`complaint and narrowed their claims. They now seek only to represent a California class. The
`
`Stuve plaintiffs similarly amended their complaint to excise claims premised on a nationwide
`
`class; they now bring claims on behalf of a 10-state class. Two other putative class actions assert
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-04811 Document #: 31 Filed: 09/08/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:442
`
`
`
`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
`
`claims against Kraft related to phthalates: Francione v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, No. 1:21-cv-
`
`10928 in the District of Massachusetts and Tarantino v. The Kraft Heinz Company, No. 2:21-cv-
`
`04013 in the Eastern District of New York. Kraft avers it is “in the process of seeking to transfer
`
`all of these cases” to the Northern District of Illinois. Reply at 1.
`
`III. 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 or to
`
`any district or division to which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). A motion to
`
`transfer venue requires courts to balance, among other factors: “(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).
`
`None of the factors are dispositive. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, 2008 WL
`
`4543043, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2008) (citing Stewart Org. Inc. v Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29
`
`(1988)). Whether to transfer is left to the discretion of the district court. See Commodity Futures
`
`Trading Comm'n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979) (“Weighing of the factors for and
`
`against transfer involves subtle considerations and is best left to the discretion of the trial judge.”).
`
`The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating transfer is warranted. Id.
`
`IV. DISCUSSION
`
`
`
`District courts “must consider both private factors, which go to the convenience of the
`
`parties and witnesses, and public factors which go to the interests of justice.” 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). Because more of the factors weigh in favor of
`
`transfer, the motion is granted.1
`
`
`1 Both sides agree the action could have been brought in the Northern District of Illinois.
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER
`CASE NO. 21-cv-02437-RS
`
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-04811 Document #: 31 Filed: 09/08/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:443
`
`
`
`A. Private Factors
`
`The first four, so-called “private factors” weigh the Plaintiffs’ choice of forum against the
`
`convenience to parties and witnesses and the ease of access to evidence. On balance, the private
`
`factors tip slightly in Plaintiffs’ favor.
`
`Generally, a plaintiff’s choice of forum receives considerable deference, and a defendant
`
`must make a “strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting” that choice. Decker, 805
`
`F.2d at 843. Though the choice is discounted in the class action context, it is still entitled to
`
`deference when plaintiffs reside, or purchased the relevant products, in the district in which the
`
`action is brought. Alul v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 2016 WL 7116934, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7,
`
`2016). “Such deference is warranted because the named Plaintiffs . . . will ‘bear a great deal of
`
`responsibility[.]’” Id. While they do bring class claims, both Plaintiffs reside in this district and
`
`contend they purchased Kraft Macaroni & Cheese from stores in this district. Their choice is thus
`
`entitled to some deference. The first factor weighs in their favor.
`
`The convenience factors, on the other hand, are neutral. Kraft is a Delaware corporation
`
`co-headquartered in Chicago, Illinois and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Where “the gravamen of [the]
`
`case is whether Defendant made false and misleading statements in advertising, Defendant’s
`
`employees responsible for the creation and approval of these advertisements will be key
`
`witnesses[.]” Alesia v. Gojo Industries, Inc., 2020 WL 6826475, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2020).
`
`In this case, all relevant “marketing, research and development, [and] corporate quality” decisions
`
`emanated from Kraft’s Chicago headquarters, which suggests most of witnesses, and relevant
`
`evidence, are located in the Northern District of Illinois. Motion at 5. Yet “the convenience of a
`
`litigant’s employee witnesses are entitled to little weight because litigants are able to compel their
`
`employees to testify at trial, regardless of forum.” Alul, 2016 WL 7116934, at *4. The
`
`inconvenience of transferring relevant evidence is similarly not dispositive where, in the digital
`
`age, “ease of access is neutral given the portability of [electronic discovery].” Id. at *5. Kraft does
`
`not indicate it intends to call any non-employee witnesses or foresees producing, or paying for the
`
`transfer of, a significant amount of non-electronic discovery. It is furthermore inarguable that a
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER
`CASE NO. 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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-04811 Document #: 31 Filed: 09/08/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:444
`
`
`
`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
`
`large corporation like Kraft is much better situated to bear the costs of travel and production than
`
`individual plaintiffs. Thus, while it would ease the potentially heavy production burden on Kraft to
`
`transfer the case, there is a possibility doing so would simply, and improperly, “shift the
`
`inconvenience from one party to another.” See Dubose v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 2017 WL
`
`2775034, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2017).
`
`B. Public Factors
`
`“In determining whether the interests of justice favor transfer, courts look primarily at
`
`considerations of judicial economy[.]” Zut v. Harrah’s Entm’t, Inc., 2013 WL 5442282, at *3
`
`(N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2013). The last four factors (familiarity with the applicable law, feasibility of
`
`consolidation, local interest in the controversy, and the relative court congestion) guide this
`
`inquiry. Because transferring the case would increase the chances of consolidation while
`
`decreasing the potential for inconsistent verdicts, the public factors weigh markedly in favor of
`
`transfer.
`
`Both courts are equally capable of applying the applicable law and rightfully interested in
`
`the outcome of the case. Though Plaintiffs now seek to represent only a California class and
`
`federal courts sitting in California undoubtedly grapple with California law most extensively,
`
`“federal courts are deemed capable of applying the substantive law of other states.” See
`
`Rabinowitz v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 2014 WL 5422576, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2014); see
`
`also Bloom v. Express Servs., Inc., 2011 WL 1481402 (“Because a district court in Oklahoma
`
`would be equally able to interpret California state law as this Court, this factor is neutral with
`
`respect to transfer.”). This factor is thus “accorded little weight.” See Rabinowitz, 2014 WL
`
`5422576, at *7. Both venues are similarly interested in adjudicating this dispute. On one hand,
`
`California has a strong interest in enforcing its laws to protect its residents. On the other, Illinois
`
`has a countervailing interest in adjudicating disputes involving companies headquartered there.
`
`Yet “[d]istrict courts regularly apply the law of states other than the forum state” and principles of
`
`federalism require confidence that a federal court in Illinois will interpret California’s laws to
`
`protect its citizens to the same extent a federal court in California would. See id. Illinois’s
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER
`CASE NO. 21-cv-02437-RS
`
`4
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-04811 Document #: 31 Filed: 09/08/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:445
`
`
`
`territorial interests are also offset where, as here, the named plaintiffs live and purchased the
`
`relevant products in California. See Alul, 2016 WL 7116934, at *5.
`
`The public factors scale is thus tipped most strongly by the possibility of consolidation,
`
`which weighs heavily in favor of transfer because the Stuve action is already pending in the
`
`Northern District of Illinois. While Kraft does not set forth the criteria for relation or consolidation
`
`in that district, it is not unreasonable to assume that the disposition of two, or potentially four,
`
`cases revolving around the alleged presence of phthalates in Kraft Macaroni & Cheese will be
`
`coordinated in some way. It would waste judicial resources for multiple courts to become
`
`intimately familiar with the same nucleus of facts only perhaps to contradict one another on the
`
`law. Plaintiffs make the logically tenuous counterpoint that because one action is pending here and
`
`one is pending in the Northern District of Illinois, there is equal justification for keeping or
`
`transferring the case. There is, however, no way to reap the benefits of consolidation if this action
`
`remains here. Because this factor weighs strongly in favor of transfer and the private factors weigh
`
`only slightly in Plaintiffs’ favor, the motion is granted.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the reasons set forth above, the motion to transfer this case to the Northern District of
`
`Illinois is granted.
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: September 8, 2021
`
`
`
`______________________________________
`
`RICHARD SEEBORG
`Chief United States District Judge
`
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER
`CASE NO. 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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`