Waggener van Meter v. Mondelez International, Inc.

Background

Megan Waggener van Meter filed a proposed class action against Mondelez International, Inc. She alleged that Mondelez’s sustainability and sourcing labels misled consumers into believing that its products were made in accordance with environmentally and socially responsible standards. Her complaint asserted claims under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and for unjust enrichment. She sought to represent a nationwide class of people who purchased Mondelez products bearing specified sustainability-related statements.

Mondelez had filed a motion to dismiss. It later moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case to the Northern District of Illinois. Waggener van Meter moved to strike Mondelez’s statement of a recent decision. Mondelez based its transfer request in part on a similar proposed class action, Gollogly v. Mondelez Int’l, Inc., pending in the Northern District of Illinois. The court described the two actions as arising from the same operative facts, and Waggener van Meter did not dispute that the Illinois case was duplicative.

Transfer analysis

Section 1404(a) permits a federal district court to transfer a case when the alternative district is a proper venue and the private and public factors favor transfer. The court first found that the case could have been filed in the Northern District of Illinois because Mondelez’s principal place of business was in Chicago. Waggener van Meter did not dispute that point.

The court gave Waggener van Meter’s choice of the Northern District of California less weight because the case was a proposed class action and the alleged mislabeling did not occur in that district. The convenience of the parties was neutral because Illinois was more convenient for Mondelez and its counsel, but Mondelez offered to take Waggener van Meter’s deposition remotely or in California if travel was inconvenient.

The witness-convenience factor received less weight in favor of transfer because Mondelez did not identify the employees it expected to call or explain the nature and importance of their testimony. The evidence-access factor slightly favored transfer because the relevant documentary evidence was in the Northern District of Illinois, which the court called the case’s “center of gravity.” The applicable-law factor was neutral because federal courts can apply state law. The local-interest factor was also neutral because both California and Illinois had an interest in the dispute.

The court found that transfer would make consolidation of the two actions feasible. It also found that litigating the actions in a coordinated manner would prevent duplicative and unnecessary efforts. The court therefore concluded that the transfer factors supported moving the case to Illinois. The court did not analyze relative court congestion and trial timing because neither party addressed that factor and Mondelez had the burden to show that transfer was warranted.

Ruling

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granted Mondelez’s motion to transfer the action to the Northern District of Illinois. The court dismissed as moot Mondelez’s motion to dismiss and Waggener van Meter’s motion to strike. The opinion addressed the proper venue and convenience of litigating the case; it did not decide the merits of Waggener van Meter’s labeling claims.