Shibley v. New Prime Inc.

Filing 25

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Central District of California Pursuant to the Stipulation of the Parties and 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/17/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 JASON SHIBLEY, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, 13 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff, v. NEW PRIME, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, No. 1:16-cv-01000-DAD-EPG ORDER TRANSFERRRING CASE TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AND 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Doc. No. 24) Defendants. 18 19 Before the court is the parties’ stipulation to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for 20 the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (Doc. No. 24.) Section 21 1404(a) provides, “[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a 22 district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have 23 been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” 24 The parties have reached a settlement in this case as well as in Montgomery v. New Prime, 25 Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-02131 DOC pending in the Central District of California, Southern 26 Division. (Id. at 2.) The parties have agreed that the class settlement in both cases should be 27 presented to and reviewed by the same court and that the Southern Division of the Central District 28 of California is the proper venue where this action should be transferred. (Id.) 1 1 Accordingly, the court orders that the above-captioned action be transferred to the 2 Southern Division of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on the grounds 3 that: (1) this case could have been brought in the Central District of California; (2) transferring 4 the case to the Central District of California would be more convenient to the parties; (3) the 5 interests of justice are furthered by such a transfer; and (4) judicial economy would be best served 6 by transfer of this action to the Central District to permit the settlement review and approval 7 process to occur in a single court. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: February 17, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?