1 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RAYMOND TSCHUDY, individually, on 

behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, 

and on behalf of the general public, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

J. C. PENNEY CORPORATION, INC., a 

Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, 

inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: 11cv1011 JM-CAB 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

SEVER ILLINOIS PLAINTIFFS AND 

TRANSFER VENUE OF ILLINOIS 

PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS 

Docket No. 50 

I. BACKGROUND 

In April 2011, Plaintiff Raymond Tschudy filed a class action complaint in San Diego 

Superior Court claiming that Defendant J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. (“JCP”) violated several 

California laws by failing to fully compensate employees for unused paid vacation time. The 

action was removed to this court shortly thereafter. On February 8, 2012, the court granted 

Plaintiffs’ motion to file a second amended complaint, which also contains claims against JCP by 

several Plaintiffs residing in Illinois. JCP now moves to transfer the Illinois Plaintiffs’ claims 

from this court to the Northern District of Illinois. For the reasons stated below, the motion is 

GRANTED. 
 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

II. LEGAL STANDARD AND DISCUSSION 

A. Standard for Venue Transfer 

Venue transfer is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which states that an action can be 

transferred to another district “[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest 

of justice” if the case could have originally been brought in the transferee court. Here, there is 

no dispute that the Illinois Plaintiffs’ claims could have been brought in the Northern District of 

Illinois, so the court need only examine whether transfer would serve the interest of justice and 

be more convenient for the parties and witnesses. District courts may look to a host of factors in 

deciding whether to transfer venue, including (but not limited to) (1) which state is more familiar 

with the governing law, (2) the respective parties’ contacts with the forum, (3) plaintiff’s choice 

of forum, (4) ease of access to witnesses and other evidence, and (5) differences in litigation 

costs. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000). The Ninth Circuit 

has also enumerated several public interest factors appropriate for consideration, including (1) 

court congestion, (2) the local interest in trying localized controversies at home, (3) avoidance of 

unnecessary conflict of laws problems, and (4) unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated 

forum with jury duty. Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th 

Cir. 1986). 

In general, “[t]he defendant must make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant 

upsetting the plaintiff’s choice of forum.” Decker Coal, 805 F.2d at 843. However, “[t]he 

degree to which courts defer to the plaintiff’s chosen venue is substantially reduced where the 

plaintiff’s venue choice is not its residence or where the forum chosen lacks a significant 

connection to the activities alleged in the complaint.” Center for Biological Diversity v. 

Lubchenco, 2009 WL 4545169 at *4 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (unreported decision). See also Pacific 

Car & Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968) (“If the operative facts have not 
 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

occurred within the forum of original selection and that forum has no particular interest in the 

parties or the subject matter, the plaintiff’s choice is entitled to only minimal consideration.”). 

B. Important Factors in this Case 

Though both Plaintiffs and Defendant have factors weighing in their favor, on balance the 

court finds that transfer to the Northern District of Illinois will better serve convenience and the 

interest of justice. 

1. Plaintiffs’ Choice of Forum 

 The parties agree that because Plaintiffs seek to represent a class in this litigation, their 

choice of forum is given less weight than it would be given in a typical case. Lou v. Belzberg, 

834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987) (explaining that while “great weight is generally accorded 

plaintiff’s choice of forum,” less weight is accorded to that choice if they represent a class); 

Rafton v. Rydex Series Funds, 2010 WL 2629579 at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2010). Further, as explained 

above, Plaintiffs’ choice of forum is given less deference because this district has no connection 

to the parties or events that occurred in Illinois. See Pacific Car & Foundry Co., 403 F.2d at 954. 

Plaintiffs point out that they have not filed the case in this district in order to gain a procedural 

advantage, but only because the California Plaintiffs’ claims are also pending here. While that 

may be true, the nature of Plaintiffs’ motive does not alter the fact that the Illinois Plaintiffs have 

little or no connection to California, and thus does not persuade the court to accord Plaintiffs’ 

choice of forum more weight. In sum, while the Plaintiffs’ choice of forum will be considered in 

the court’s calculus, it will not be granted significant deference. 

2. Familiarity with Governing Law 

 JCP’s motion urges the court to transfer the case because an Illinois court would be better 

equipped to decide claims under Illinois law. Plaintiffs’ opposition argues that because 

California and Illinois laws are almost identical on the subject at hand, this factor does not weigh 

in favor of trying the case in Illinois. The parties devote a significant portion of their briefs to 
 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

discussing case law and pointing out the similarities and distinctions that exist between the 

states’ case law authority. 

 First, the court notes that performing the inquiry requested by Plaintiffs may be 

somewhat imprudent: in order to determine whether the laws are indeed identical in all 

situations that could arise in this litigation, the court would be required to look deeply into 

Illinois case law. If the court were to master Illinois law sufficiently to decide at this point 

whether Illinois law and California law are identical, it would necessarily be similarly equipped 

to decide issues of Illinois law regardless of whether the laws are identical. 

 As demonstrated by the briefs, Plaintiffs are undoubtedly correct that at least the states’ 

laws are similar, but this threshold consideration does not establish that a California court would 

be necessarily adept at applying Illinois law. At this stage the parties have not yet advanced the 

totality of their legal arguments, and it is therefore uncertain whether each state’s precedent 

would call for identical conclusions. Without more factual development, the court cannot even 

be certain that JCP’s policy was applied in the same manner in both states. Thus, it is premature 

at this juncture to gauge this court’s capacity to apply Illinois law to Illinois circumstances with 

the same knowledge and judgment as an Illinois court. Despite this current uncertainty, the court 

notes that federal judges frequently examine the laws of other states without great moment or 

angst. Given this consideration, the fact that an Illinois court might be able to decide this case 

more skillfully weighs only slightly in favor of transfer. 

3. Convenience of Witnesses and Evidence and Judicial Economy 

 The parties also disagree about the level of inconvenience that will be created if the 

Illinois claims are tried in this district. JCP argues that the existence of documentary evidence in 

other areas will create inconvenience and that it would be difficult for the court to perform longdistance supervision of any injunctive relief that might be granted. These concerns are valid, but 

JCP has not made a strong showing that it would be difficult to produce electronic records or 
 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

transport paper documents to California. Further, the necessity of significant hands-on oversight 

of any injunction is mere speculation at this point and seems rather unlikely. 

 Of more concern is the inconvenience that may be caused by requiring witnesses to travel 

because of the litigation. On this point, Plaintiffs maintain that the interpretation of this contract 

is principally a judicial function. While much of this litigation may hinge on questions of law, 

that does not foreclose the possibility that witnesses will be necessary to testify as to JCP’s 

practices in Illinois and California. And while JCP may have overstated the risk as to the 

number of people that may be required to travel if the case were to remain in this district, a 

potential for significant witness inconvenience would arise if the case were to remain in this 

district. 

 Relatedly, the court notes that substantial discovery will be necessary for the litigation of 

this case. Such discovery will undoubtedly be centered on the JCP stores in which Plaintiffs 

have worked. Managing that discovery is often a hands-on task that requires constant 

supervision by the court. Thus, even though some judicial resources might be saved by 

consolidating the cases into one district, such savings likely could be outweighed by the 

difficulty of long-distance management of discovery in Illinois. 

4. Site of Events Giving Rise to Case 

 While none of the factors above weigh heavily in one direction or another, the fact that 

all of the Illinois Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of events that occurred in Illinois unequivocally 

creates a public interest in trying the case in Illinois. Without strong considerations weighing on 

the other side of the balance, there is little logic behind requiring this district to expend its 

resources or require jurors to decide claims of Illinois residents that arose in Illinois. See Decker 

Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). 
 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

III. CONCLUSION 

 The Illinois Plaintiffs had little reason to file in California other than the fact that this 

case was already pending on behalf of the California Plaintiffs. Thus, the Plaintiffs’ choice of 

forum is not controlling. While trying the claims together could preserve some resources, those 

savings would likely be outweighed by other inefficiencies that would be created. Further, a 

California court and California jurors have little interest in taking on a case with no relation to 

this district. Consequently, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED; the claims of the Illinois 

Plaintiffs are hereby severed and transferred to the Northern District of Illinois. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 27, 2012 ___________________________ 

 Jeffrey T. Miller 

 United States District Judge