Krapf v. Virtuox, Inc.

Filing 39

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti denying 37 Motion to Transfer Case; denying 38 Stipulation (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

VIRGINIA KRAPF,
10
Plaintiff,
11
12

v.
VIRTUOX, INC.

13
Defendant.
14
15
16

) Case No. C 13-0856 SC
)
) ORDER DENYING MOTION AND
) STIPULATION TO TRANSFER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17
18
19

Now before the Court are Plaintiff Virginia Krapf's

20

("Plaintiff") motion to transfer venue, ECF No. 37 ("Mot."), and

21

the parties' stipulation to transfer venue, ECF No. 38 ("Stip.").

22

The transfer the parties request would fall under 28 U.S.C. §

23

1404(a), which reads in full: "For the convenience of parties and

24

witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may

25

transfer any civil action to any other district or division where

26

it might have been brought or to any district or division to which

27

all parties have consented."

28

Court to transfer a different case, Virtuox Inc. v. Virginia Krapf,

Specifically, Plaintiff asks the

1

Case No. 13-60531 (S.D. Fla.) (the "Florida case"), to the United

2

States District Court for the Northern District of California.

3

Mot. at 1.

4

to transfer the Florida case to this Court.

5

After Plaintiff filed her motion, Defendant stipulated

The problem with the motion and stipulation is that they ask

6

the Court to reach outside its jurisdiction to take a case from

7

another district court.

8

procedure for the parties would have been to ask the District Court

9

for the Southern District of Florida to transfer the Florida case

The Court declines to do so.

The proper

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

here, after which the parties could consolidate their actions in

11

this Court.

12

pending can order a change in venue . . . . [A]nother district

13

court cannot, on the theory that it would be a more convenient

14

forum, order the court in which the action is pending to transfer

15

the case to it."

16

Federal Practice and Procedure § 3844 (3d ed.).

17

"Only the district court in which the action is

15 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,

The parties seem to think that the "first-to-file" rule allows

18

the Court to transfer the Florida case to the Northern District of

19

California.

20

is a discretionary doctrine of federal comity that permits a

21

district court to decline jurisdiction over an action that is

22

similar in issues and parties to an earlier-filed case in another

23

district, and then to stay, dismiss, or transfer a case to another

24

district court.

25

F.2d 622, 628 (9th Cir. 1991); Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic,

26

Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 94-95 (9th Cir. 1982); see also Wallerstein v.

27

Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc., No. 13-cv-01284 YGR, 2013 WL 5271291,

28

at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2013).

See Mot. at 4-6.

It does not.

The first-to-file rule

See Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods. Inc., 946

2

The court in the Florida

1

action stayed its case to allow the undersigned to decide whether

2

to keep the dispute, but it did not transfer the case.

3

Staying Case, Virtuox v. Krapf, No. 13-60531-CIV-DIMITROULEAS (S.D.

4

Fla. Oct. 9, 2013); see also Longview Fibre Paper & Packaging, Inc.

5

v. Travelers Indem. Co., No. C-06-5666 FDB, 2007 WL 601226, at *1

6

(M.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2007) (citing Alltrade for the proposition that

7

federal courts commonly stay the second-filed action to afford the

8

court of the first-filed action to decide whether to keep the

9

dispute, after which the second-filed action can be dismissed or

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10
11

See Order

transferred).
The Court will keep this case, finding that it was filed first

12

and concerns the same issues and parties as the Florida case.

If

13

the parties request a stay in this action, the Court is inclined to

14

grant that request while the parties pursue a transfer before the

15

District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: November 12, 2013

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3