Kahn v. Target Corporation

Background

Yoram Kahn filed a proposed class action against Target Corporation. He alleged that he bought two kinds of Ritz crackers at a Target store in Niles, Illinois, after seeing a shelf price that was 30 cents lower than the amount charged at checkout. Kahn further alleged that Target frequently advertised one price on shelf signs but charged a higher price at checkout nationwide, and that state agencies had fined Target for similar conduct.

Kahn asserted claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, consumer-protection laws in Illinois and approximately 30 other states, and the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. He also pleaded unjust enrichment in the alternative. The proposed classes included Illinois purchasers, purchasers in multiple states, and a nationwide class.

Motion to Transfer

Target moved to transfer the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a statute allowing a federal court to move a civil case to another proper federal district when convenience and the interests of justice favor the move. Target also asked, in the alternative, for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim.

The parties agreed that venue was proper both in the Northern District of Illinois and in the District of Minnesota. The court therefore focused on convenience and the interests of justice.

The court gave Kahn’s choice of Illinois only slight weight. It noted that Kahn lived in Ohio rather than Illinois, that he had filed a proposed nationwide class action, and that the case involved alleged conduct affecting consumers across the country. The court also concluded that the material events concerned Target’s alleged nationwide pricing decisions and its failure to implement controls, which the court found would have occurred at Target’s headquarters in Minnesota rather than at an individual store.

The court found that convenience to the parties was neutral. Although Kahn said Minnesota would be less convenient for him, the court found that his travel preferences did not show that Minnesota would be unduly burdensome. The court found that convenience to nonparty witnesses favored transfer because Target identified potential witnesses in the Minneapolis area who were former members of Target’s store-operations and pricing-compliance teams. The court also found that access to evidence slightly favored transfer because relevant corporate records were located in Minnesota, while recognizing that modern technology made this factor only minimally important.

Interests of Justice

The court found that the courts’ familiarity with the applicable law was neutral because the case involved Illinois law and the laws of more than 30 other states, including Minnesota. The court found that the speed-to-trial factor favored Minnesota based on federal statistics showing shorter median times to disposition and trial there. The court also found that Minnesota had a greater interest in resolving the dispute because Target’s headquarters and the decision-making underlying the alleged policies were there, even though Kahn was allegedly harmed in Illinois and asserted claims for an Illinois class.

The court rejected Kahn’s argument that the case should remain in Illinois because he had filed a similar consumer-fraud action against Walmart there. It concluded that the two cases were not parallel or nearly parallel because they involved different defendants, underlying facts, and likely class members.

Disposition

The court concluded that the convenience factors and interests of justice strongly favored Minnesota. It granted Target’s motion to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court did not decide Target’s alternative Rule 12(b)(6) motion; it left that issue to the transferee court. The court also terminated Target’s motion to deny class certification and Kahn’s motion to strike that motion, stating that those motions could be renewed before the transferee court. All pending motions were terminated, and the civil case was transferred and terminated on the Illinois court’s docket.