(PS) Ferrantino v. World Private Security, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY FERRANTINO, No. 2:18-cv-2338 KJM DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 WORLD PRIVATE SECURITY, INC; WALMART STORES, INC., 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Anthony Ferrantino is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred 19 to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending 20 before the court are plaintiff’s motion to transfer and defendant Walmart Inc.’s answer. (ECF 21 Nos. 13 & 17.) 22 I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer 23 On June 25, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to transfer this matter to the Northern District of 24 California. (ECF No. 13.) The one-page motion states in a vague and conclusory manner that the 25 transfer is “in consideration of . . . better conservation of court’s time and resources[.]” (Id.) The 26 motion, however, was not noticed for hearing as required by Local Rule 230. 27 Moreover, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(b), a federal court is authorized to transfer an 28 action from one district to another, upon motion, consent, or stipulation of all parties. The court 1 may transfer an action to any district where it might have been brought “[f]or the convenience of 2 parties and witnesses” and “in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Ventress v. Japan 3 Airlines, 486 F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir. 2007). 4 However, the moving party must first establish that the matter “might have been brought” 5 in the district to which transfer is sought. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “This includes demonstrating that 6 subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue would have been proper if the 7 plaintiff had filed the action in the district to which transfer is sought.” Catch Curve, Inc. v. 8 Venali, Inc., Case No. CV 05-2820 DDP (AJWx), 2006 WL 4568799, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 9 2006); see Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343-44 (1960). If plaintiff makes the necessary 10 showing, the court must consider: (1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the convenience of the 11 witnesses; and (3) the interests of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); see Szegedy v. Keystone Food 12 Prod., Inc., No. CV 08-5369 CAS (FFMx), 2009 WL 2767683 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2009) (citing 13 Los Angeles Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n v. N.F.L., 89 F.R.D. 497, 499 (C.D. Cal. 1981)). 14 Here, plaintiff’s motion makes no attempt to make the necessary showing. Accordingly, 15 plaintiff’s motion will be denied without prejudice to renewal. 16 II. Defendant’s Answer 17 Because defendant has filed an answer, the undersigned finds good cause to set this matter 18 for a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference. 19 CONCLUSION 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 21 1. Plaintiff’s June 25, 2019 motion to transfer (ECF No. 13) is denied without prejudice 22 to renewal. 23 2. A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is set for Friday, April 10, 2020, at 10:00 24 a.m. at the United States District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 25 27 before the undersigned. 26 3. All parties are required to appear at the Status Conference, either by counsel or, if 27 proceeding in propria persona, on his or her own behalf. Any party may appear at the status 28 conference telephonically if the party pre-arranges such appearance by contacting Pete Buzo, the 1 courtroom deputy of the undersigned magistrate judge, at (916) 930-4128, no later than 48 hours 2 before the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference; a party may not appear telephonically over a 3 cellphone. 4 4. Plaintiff shall file and serve a status report on or before March 27, 2020, and 5 defendant shall file and serve a status report on or before April 3, 2020. Each party’s status 6 report shall address all of the following matters: 7 a. Progress of service of process; 8 b. Possible joinder of additional parties; 9 c. Possible amendment of the pleadings; 10 d. Jurisdiction and venue; 11 e. Anticipated motions and the scheduling thereof; 12 f. Anticipated discovery and the scheduling thereof, including disclosure of expert witnesses; 13 g. Future proceedings, including the setting of appropriate cut-off 14 dates for discovery and for law and motion, and the scheduling of a final pretrial conference and trial; 15 h. Modification of standard pretrial procedures specified by the rules 16 due to the relative simplicity or complexity of the action; 17 i. Whether the case is related to any other case, including matters in bankruptcy; 18 j. Whether the parties will stipulate to the magistrate judge assigned 19 to this matter acting as settlement judge, waiving any disqualification by virtue of her so acting, or whether they prefer to 20 have a Settlement Conference before another magistrate judge; 21 k. Whether the parties intend to consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge; and 22 l. Any other matters that may aid in the just and expeditious 23 disposition of this action. 24 //// 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 5. The parties are cautioned that failure to file a status report or failure to appear at the 2 | status conference may result in an order imposing an appropriate sanction. See Local Rules 110 3 | and 183. 4 | Dated: February 21, 2020 5 6 4 ‘BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 DLB:6 25 || DB/orders/orders.pro se/ferrantino2338.trans.ossc.ord 26 27 28