Powerteq, LLC v. Moton

Filing 39

ORDER RE: DEFERRED PORTION OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR TRANSFER; TRANSFERRING ACTION TO NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS; VACATING HEARING. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 20, 2016. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2016)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

POWERTEQ, LLC,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

ASHRAF MOTON,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 15-cv-02626-MMC
ORDER RE: DEFERRED PORTION OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
OR TRANSFER; TRANSFERRING
ACTION TO NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
TEXAS; VACATING HEARING
Re: Dkt. No. 25

12
13

Before the Court is the deferred portion of defendant Ashraf Moton's ("Moton")

14

motion to dismiss or transfer, filed November 23, 2015. By order filed January 7, 2016,

15

the Court deferred ruling to the extent the motion sought dismissal or transfer to the

16

Northern District of Texas on grounds of improper venue and dismissal for lack of

17

personal jurisdiction.1 In so doing, the Court found Moton had submitted sufficient

18

evidence that, if uncontroverted, was sufficient to show venue is improper in this District

19

and that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over him. Additionally, at plaintiff Powerteq,

20

LLC's ("Powerteq") request, the Court afforded Powerteq leave to conduct discovery and

21

to file supplemental opposition no later than April 15, 2016. To date, Powerteq has not

22

filed such supplemental opposition.2

23
24

Accordingly, as (1) Powerteq's principal place of business is located in Texas (see
Compl. ¶ 3), (2) Moton resides in the Northern District of Texas (see Moton Aff. ¶ 2;

25
1

26
27

The Court denied the motion without prejudice to the extent the motion sought
transfer to the Northern District of Texas for the convenience of the parties and
witnesses.
2

28

In light of the above, the May 13, 2016, hearing is hereby VACATED.

1

Def.'s Mot. ¶ 2), and (3) the sales challenged by Powerteq were made in Dallas County,

2

Texas (see Moton Aff. ¶ 21), which is located in the Northern District of Texas, see 28

3

U.S.C. § 124(a)(1), the Court, rather than an order of dismissal, finds it preferable and in

4

the interest of justice to transfer the case to the Northern District of Texas, see 28 U.S.C.

5

§ 1406(a) (providing where case is filed in district in which venue is not properly laid,

6

district court "shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any

7

district . . . in which it could have been brought").

8
9
10

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Northern
District of Texas.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Dated: April 20, 2016
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2