Laughlin v. VMWare, Inc.

Filing 19

ORDER granting 15 MOTION to Transfer Case to San Jose Division. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 03/23/11. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/23/2011)

Laughlin v. VMware, Inc.

Doc. 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. VMWARE, INC.,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELIZABETH MOORE LAUGHLIN, Plaintiff, NO. C11-0530 TEH ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO SAN JOSE DIVISION Defendant.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

The Court has reviewed Defendant VMware, Inc.'s motion for administrative relief to

12 transfer this case to the San Jose division, and the time for opposing such a motion has now 13 expired. With good cause appearing for the reasons set forth below, the motion is 14 GRANTED. 15 Under Civil Local Rule 3-2(c), a "civil action arises in the county in which a

16 substantial part of the events or omissions which give rise to the claim occurred or in which a 17 substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated." Civil actions 18 "aris[ing] in the counties of Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito or Monterey shall be 19 assigned to the San Jose Division."1 Civ. L.R. 3-2(e). The parties do not dispute that 20 VMWare, Inc. is located in Palo Alto, California, which is in Santa Clara County, or that the 21 claims in this case are based on events alleged to have occurred there. Thus, assignment to 22 the San Jose Division is proper, and this case should have been assigned there initially. 23 Indeed, that would have been the likely result had Plaintiff complied with Civil Local Rule 24 3-5(b), which requires each complaint to "include a paragraph entitled `Intradistrict 25 26
1 This case does not fall into one of the excepted categories that are assigned on a 27 district-wide basis. Civ. L.R. 3-2(c) (excepting "Intellectual Property Actions, Securities Class Actions and Capital and Noncapital Prisoner Petitions or Prisoner Civil Rights 28 Actions" from the county-based assignment plan).

Dockets.Justia.com

1 Assignment'" that identifies "any basis for assignment to a particular location or division of 2 the Court pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-2(c)." 3 4 5 6 7 Civil Local Rule 3-2(h) provides that: Whenever a Judge finds, upon the Judge's own motion or the motion of any party, that a civil action has not been assigned to the proper division within this district in accordance with this rule, or that the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interests of justice will be served by transferring the action to a different division within the district, the Judge may order such transfer, subject to the provisions of the Court's Assignment Plan.

8 Accordingly, with good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action be 9 transferred to the San Jose Division of this Court and reassigned in accordance with the 10 Court's Assignment Plan.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: 03/23/11 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT