Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Golden Valley Lending, Inc.
1:17-cv-03155
N.D. Ill.Sep 8, 2017Background
- Defendants are tribal lending companies owned by the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake; CFPB sues for allegedly originating and collecting usurious loans in violation of federal law.
- Defendants seek transfer from the Northern District of Illinois to the District of Kansas under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- Defendants operate a separately incorporated call center in Kansas that contacts borrowers and conducts underwriting; twelve call‑center employees are identified as potential witnesses outside the Illinois court’s subpoena power.
- CFPB contends Illinois is a material situs because funds transfers show many borrowers with Illinois addresses and thousands of alleged victims reside in Illinois; CFPB has not identified specific Illinois witnesses.
- Court evaluated convenience (witness availability, access to evidence) and the "interest of justice" (docket congestion, applicable law, relation to controversy) and made factual findings based on affidavits and record evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfer to the District of Kansas is appropriate under § 1404(a) | CFPB favors Illinois as forum; plaintiff’s choice deserves deference because many victims are in Illinois | Kansas is clearly more convenient given key witnesses and operations located at Kansas call center | Transfer granted; Kansas is clearly more convenient |
| Convenience of witnesses and subpoena power | Many victims in Illinois make Illinois convenient; CFPB points to situs of funds transfers | Twelve identified Kansas call‑center employees are outside Illinois subpoena power and are likely key witnesses | Court gave greater weight to identified Kansas witnesses and subpoena limits; favors transfer |
| Relevance of situs of material events | Illinois is the situs based on transfers to Illinois accounts and alleged Illinois victims | Borrowers are nationwide (including 16 other states); nothing special about Illinois; CFPB identified no specific Illinois witnesses | Court found situs not uniquely tied to Illinois; neutral or favors transfer because of witness access |
| Interest of justice (docket, speed, applicable law) | Illinois law may be relevant; CFPB litigated originally in Illinois forum | Lighter caseload in Kansas and similar familiarity with federal law; no strong reason to keep in Illinois | Interest of justice neutral; did not outweigh convenience showing favoring Kansas |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1988) (§ 1404(a) requires individualized, case‑by‑case convenience analysis)
- Research Automation, Inc. v. Schrader‑Bridgeport Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 973 (7th Cir. 2010) (lists factors for convenience and interest of justice in transfer analysis)
- Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217 (7th Cir. 1986) (party seeking transfer bears burden to show forum is clearly more convenient)
- In re LimitNone, LLC, 551 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2008) (district courts may make necessary factual findings, considering affidavits, before ruling on transfer)
- In re National Presto Industries, Inc., 347 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2003) (plaintiff’s forum choice is a tie‑breaker when other convenience factors are comparable)