Davion Louis v. TPG Funding, LLC ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVION LOUIS, Case No. 2:24-cv-01941-FLA (Ex) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE TRANSFE RRED 14 TPG FUNDING, LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 On March 11, 2024, Plaintiff Davion Louis (“Plaintiff”) filed his Complaint in 2 this action, asserting claims against Defendant TPG Funding, LLC. Dkt. 1. On April 3 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), asserting claims against 4 Defendants TPG Funding, LLC and TPG Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) for (1): 5 breach of contract; (2) waiting time penalties; and (3) declaratory relief. Dkt. 12 6 (“FAC”). Plaintiff alleges he is a resident of New Jersey and that Defendants are 7 Delaware corporations with their principal places of business in Fort Worth, Texas. 8 Id. ¶¶ 1–3. According to Plaintiff, he was employed by Defendants in their offices in 9 San Francisco, California, from on or about August 3, 2020, until on or about 10 November 18, 2022. Id. ¶ 8. 11 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (“§ 1404(a)”) provides: “For the convenience of parties 12 and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to 13 any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or 14 division to which all parties have consented.” “Under § 1404(a), the district court has 15 discretion ‘to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an individualized, case-by- 16 case consideration of convenience and fairness.’” Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 17 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Stewart Org. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 18 29 (1988) (internal quotation marks omitted)). In making this determination, courts 19 consider non-exclusive factors including: 20 (1) the location where [any] relevant agreements were negotiated and 21 executed, (2) the state that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (4) the respective parties’ contacts 22 with the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of 23 action in the chosen forum, (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the availability of compulsory process to 24 compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) the ease 25 of access to sources of proof. 26 Id. at 498–99, cited in e.g., Gay v. Shaffer, 831 Fed. App’x 352, 353 (9th Cir. 2020). 27 Additional factors commonly considered include: (1) the convenience of the parties 28 and witnesses, (2) the feasibility of consolidation with other claims, (3) any local 1 | interest in the controversy, and (4) the relative court congestion and time to trial in 2 | each forum. Vu v. Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc., 602 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1156 (N.D. Cal. 3 | 2009). 4 Plaintiff does not plead any facts to establish that this district has any 5 || connection to the claims pleaded. See FAC. Accordingly, the court ORDERS the 6 | parties to Show Cause (“OSC”) in writing by April 23, 2024, why this action should 7 | not be transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the Northern District of 8 | California, the District of New Jersey, the District of Delaware, or the Northern 9 | District of Texas. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 | Dated: April 9, 2024 14 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28