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)

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