Clarke v. The Kraft Heinz Company

Background

The plaintiffs alleged that Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, manufactured by The Kraft Heinz Company, contains harmful substances called phthalates. The case was filed on April 5, 2021. The plaintiffs initially sought to bring claims on behalf of a nationwide class but later amended the complaint to seek representation of only a California class. The plaintiffs said they lived in the district and had purchased Kraft Macaroni & Cheese from stores there.

A substantially similar action, Stuve v. The Kraft Heinz Company, was pending in the Northern District of Illinois. That action also had been amended to remove claims based on a nationwide class. The opinion also mentions two other cases concerning alleged phthalates in Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, one in Massachusetts and one in New York. Kraft said it was seeking to transfer those cases to the Northern District of Illinois as well.

Legal standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a federal district court may transfer a civil case to another district where it could have been filed, considering the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. Courts weigh factors including the plaintiff’s choice of forum, party and witness convenience, access to evidence, familiarity with the applicable law, the possibility of coordinating related claims, local interests, and the relative congestion of the courts. The party seeking transfer bears the burden of showing that transfer is warranted.

Both sides agreed that the case could have been brought in the Northern District of Illinois.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the private factors—those concerning the parties, witnesses, and evidence—slightly favored the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs’ choice of a California forum received some deference because they lived there and claimed to have purchased the product there. Kraft is a Delaware corporation co-headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Its relevant marketing, research and development, and corporate quality decisions came from its Chicago headquarters, suggesting that relevant witnesses and evidence were located in Illinois. The court nevertheless gave those considerations limited weight because employee witnesses could be required to testify and electronic evidence could be moved easily. The court also noted that shifting the burden of travel and production to the individual plaintiffs would be inappropriate when Kraft was better positioned to bear those costs.

The public factors—those concerning judicial economy and the interests of justice—strongly favored transfer. The Illinois court was capable of applying California law, and both California and Illinois had legitimate interests in the dispute. Most importantly, transferring the case increased the possibility of coordinating it with the pending Illinois action. Keeping the case in California would prevent the benefits of consolidation or other coordination and could cause multiple courts to study the same facts and reach inconsistent decisions.

Ruling

Because the public factors favoring transfer outweighed the private factors that slightly favored the plaintiffs, Judge Richard Seeborg granted Kraft’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of Illinois. The order did not resolve the merits of the plaintiffs’ allegations or claims.