LPI Inc. v. Reboot Labs LLC ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LPI INC., No. 2:22-cv-01428-DAD-KJN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TRANSFERRRING CASE TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 REBOOT LABS LLC, PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AND 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 16) 16 REBOOT LABS LLC, 17 Counter Claimant, 18 v. 19 LPI INC., 20 Counter Defendant. 21 22 This matter is before the court on the parties’ joint motion to transfer this action to the 23 United States District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles Division. (Doc. 24 No. 16.) The motion is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which provides that, “[f]or the 25 convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any 26 civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or 27 division to which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Where “the parties have 28 consented” to the transfer, “the court need only facially verify that transfer is in the interests of 1 || justice and is for the convenience of the parties and witnesses.” Gibson v. Certified Credit 2 || Reporting, Inc., No. 5:22-cv-00327-ODW-MAA, 2022 WL 2965772, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 3 | 2022). 4 Here, the parties assert that the district court in Los Angeles is a more convenient venue 5 | for them and their counsel, whose offices are located in the Beverly Hills and Newport Beach, 6 | California. (Doc. No. 16 at 2.) The parties also note that although they have not identified which 7 || witnesses will be called to testify in this case, they do not believe that venue in Los Angeles will 8 || be less convenient to their anticipated witnesses than venue in Sacramento. (Ud. at 2.) In 9 | addition, it appears that plaintiff could have initially brought this patent infringement action in the 10 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California because, in the complaint, plaintiff 11 || alleges that defendant (a California Limited Liability Company) infringed its patent by 12 || manufacturing, distributing, and selling allegedly infringing products throughout the United 13 || States. (Doc. No. | at $f] 7, 8, 27.) 14 In light of the parties’ representations and their stipulated motion requesting that this case 15 | being transferred, the court concludes that transfer of this case to the U.S. District Court for the 16 || Central District of California, Los Angeles Division, would be in the interests of justice and 17 || convenient for the parties. See May v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., No. 3:21-cv-08301-EMC, 18 | 2021 WL 5053104, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2021) (transferring action pursuant to parties’ joint 19 || stipulation to transfer under § 1404(a)). The court will therefore grant the motion to transfer. 20 Accordingly, 21 1. The parties’ joint motion to transfer this action to the Central District of California 22 (Doc. No. 16) is granted; and 23 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States 24 District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles Division. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. *° | Dated: _ October 28, 2022 Dab A. 2, ayel 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28