Ms. Henson further argues that transfer to California would
increase her inconvenience because of the location of her counsel.
However, the location of counsel is, at best, of minor
consideration when evaluating a transfer. Murphy, 88 F. Supp.2d at
853. Although Ms. Henson's chosen counsel is primarily located in
Chicago, she admits that they do have members admitted in
California. Despite her alleged initial difficulties in finding
qualified counsel, Ms. Henson makes no statement that her chosen
counsel will not represent her regardless of where this claim is
brought. The convenience factor weighs slightly in favor of
transfer.

In addition to these private factors, I must also consider the
interests of this court, including familiarity with the relevant
law and the interests of resolving the dispute within the district.
As Ms. Henson’s claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act involve
federal law, both district courts should be equally capable of
handling those claims in a fair and timely manner. The interest of
resolving the dispute within a given district weighs in favor of
transfer. California surely has an interest in protecting its
citizens, including Ms. Henson. This district has no corresponding

interest.' The public factors weigh in favor of transfer.

1 Ms. Henson suggests that because Chicago is located within
this district, an especially large number of companies and
individuals in the district would potentially be affected by
interpretation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Even if her
theory holds true, the presence of Los Angeles within the Central

4



within this district. By her own admission, the wrongs she
complains of with regard to her credit report are national, perhaps
even global, in nature. Nothing connects specifically with this
district, and the only connection with the Central District of
California is the fact that Ms. Henson is a resident in that
district. This factor does not weigh decisively in either
direction.

Third, I consider the relative ease of access to sources of
proof. Citibank is headquartered in South Dakota and Ms. Henson is
a resident of California. Neither party has a direct connection to
this district, nor does Ms. Henson allege that any evidence is to
be found within this district. On the other hand, Ms. Henson
herself and her own records are located in California, including
the records needed to prove her claims of emotional distress and
out-of-pocket expenses. This factor weighs slightly in favor of
transfer.

Finally, I consider the convenience of the parties, including
their respective residences and ability to bear the costs of trial.
Ms. Henson, as a resident of California, makes the unusual argument
that transfer should not be granted because of the increased
inconvenience to Citibank. Citibank, however, states that a
transfer to California would not be more inconvenient for it than

this district.


After careful consideration of the preceding factors, I
conclude that Ms. Henson’s claim against Citibank has no connection
to this district other than the location of her chosen counsel.
This tenuous connection is not sufficient to counterbalance the
factors that weigh in favor of transfer. I therefore grant
Citibank’s motion and transfer this case to the Central District of

California, Western Division.

"ZB, 2 Butle

Elaine E. Bucklo
United States District Judge

Dated: September ay + 2003

District of California, Western Division, should ensure an equally
large group of potentially affected entities.

5


Minate Qrder Form (05/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Elaine E. Bucklo

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

courtroom

MPI6. deputy’s

initials

central Clerk’s Office

CASE NUMBER 03 C 2476 DATE 9/24/2003
CASE Heston Vs. Equifax Credit Information, et al. vA
TITLE
{In the following box (a) indicate the parly filing the motion, e.g,, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.}
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) oOo Brief in support of motion due.
(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due
(4) im} Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) Q Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor_ at .
(6) Qo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at .
7) im Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) Q This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) Oi Local Rule 41.1 CFRCP41{a)(1)  FRCP41(a)(2).
do) wf [Other docket entry] | Defendant Citibank’s motion to transfer venue is granted and the case is
transferred to the Central District of California, Western Division. Enter Memorandum Opinion and
Order. Any pending motion, including plaintiffs motion to compel, in this case is terminated as moot.
All schedules set in this case are also vacated.
a 1) Oo [For further detail see order (on reverse side offattached to) the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court. —
No notices required. 2 of notices
Notices mailed by judge’s staff.
Noid coe! by leon, SEP 2.6 2003
-& | Docketing to mail notices.
i 49nd ‘
7_| Mait A0 450 form. IASI SIG “gin docking daly tin 2
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. sYAY
q1a4lo4

dato mailed notice

A102

mailing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

CAROLE HESTON,
Plaintiff,
Vv.

EQUIFAX CREDIT INFORMATION No. 03 C 2476

SERVICES, TRANS UNION LLC, and
CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA) N.A.,

GKETED

SEP 2 6 2003

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Carole Heston, an individual citizen of California,
states that she has been the victim of identity fraud. Ms. Heston
further claims that defendant Citibank, along with defendants
Equifax and Trans Union, have violated the Fair Credit Reporting
Act by failing to properly investigate and report her claim of
identity fraud. Citibank has filed a motion to transfer venue from
this court to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, Western Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1404(a). I grant Citibank’s motion.

This court may transfer venue to another district court for
reasons of convenience when it is “in the interest of justice.” 28
U.S.C. §1404(a). The moving party must show that (1) venue is
proper in this district, (2) venue is proper in the transferee
district, and (3) the transferee district is “clearly more
convenient” than this district. CoolSavings.Com v. IQ.Commerce

Corp., 53 F. Supp.2d 1000, 1005 (N.D. Ill. 1999). Neither party

wy,


contests the propriety of venue in either district, so the
remaining issue is whether the Central District of California,
Western Division, is clearly more convenient.

I consider both the private interests of the parties and the
public interest of the court when evaluating the relative
convenience of two forums. The private interests are (1) the
plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) the situs of material events; (3)
the relative ease of access to sources of proof in each forum; and
(4) the convenience of the parties. The public interests
considered include the court’s familiarity with the applicable law
and the desirability of resolving a case in a particular forum.
Id. at 1005-1006.

I first consider the plaintiff’s choice of forum. Normally,
this choice weighs heavily in a §1404 decision, unless no
significant connection to the chosen forum exists. Id. at 1005.
In this case, no significant connection to this district exists.
Ms. Heston is a citizen of California, giving her choice of this
forum less weight in my decision. Murphy v. Avon Products, 88 F.
Supp.2d 851, 852 (N.D. Ill. 1999). Ms. Henson further does not
allege any facts connecting her claims under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act to locations within this district. This factor
weighs in favor of transfer.

Next, I consider the situs of material events. Ms. Henson

alleges no facts that would place the situs of material events