William J. Rumley v. Regents of the University of California ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 WILLIAM J RUMLEY, et al., Case No. 19-cv-04097-PJH 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE AND VACATING 10 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HEARING CALIFORNIA, et al., 11 Re: Dkt. No. 8 Defendants. 12 13 14 Before the court is the parties’ joint motion to transfer venue. The matter is fully 15 briefed and suitable for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for 16 October 30, 2019 is VACATED. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered 17 their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and the deadline to oppose the motion 18 having passed with none filed, and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS the 19 motion. 20 “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district 21 court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have 22 been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “Before a court may transfer venue under 28 23 U.S.C. § 1404, it must find that: (i) the action is one that might have been brought in the 24 transferee court and (ii) the convenience of the parties and the interest of justice favor the 25 transfer.” Thermolife Int'l, LLC v. Vital Pharm., Inc., No. CV142449RSWLAGRX, 2014 26 WL 12235190, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2014). The purpose of § 1404(a) is to “prevent 27 the waste of time, energy and money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public 1 616 (1964) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 While there is no rigid test to determine whether a court should grant a motion to 3 transfer, the statute identifies three factors that should be considered on a motion to 4 transfer: (1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the convenience of the witnesses; and 5 (3) the interest of justice. The Ninth Circuit has articulated related considerations that 6 courts “may consider,” including: “(1) the location where the relevant agreements were 7 negotiated and executed, (2) the state that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the 8 plaintiff's choice of forum, (4) the respective parties' contacts with the forum, (5) the 9 contacts relating to the plaintiff's cause of action in the chosen forum, (6) the differences 10 in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the availability of compulsory process to 11 compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) the ease of access to 12 sources of proof.” Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498–99 (9th Cir. 2000). 13 “No single factor is dispositive, and a district court has broad discretion to adjudicate 14 motions for transfer on a case-by-case basis.” Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. 15 Kempthorne, Case No. 08-cv-1339-CW, 2008 WL 4543043, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 16 2008). 17 The parties have filed a joint, or stipulated-to, motion to transfer this action to the 18 District Court of the Eastern District of California. The court finds that the action is one 19 that might have been brought in the transferee court because it raises a federal question 20 based on events that occurred in that district, and defendants reside and/or are located in 21 that district. The court additionally finds that the convenience of the parties and the 22 interest of justice favor transfer because the alleged events giving rise to the litigation 23 occurred in the Eastern District of California, relevant witnesses work and live in that 24 district, and the parties all desire the transfer, which is strong evidence of its convenience 25 for them. 26 CONCLUSION 27 For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby GRANTS the motion to transfer the 1 October 30, 2019 hearing is VACATED. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: October 1, 2019 4 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27