Zhu v. Hugo Power Supply LLC et al

Filing 23

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 22 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 12 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(2)& (3) or, In the Alternative, to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28USC Section 1404 . The Court now GRANTS that part of the parties stipulation that transfers the case to the Charleston Division of the District of South Carolina. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on December 29, 2015. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
DAVID ZHU,

7

Case No. 15-cv-04545-JST
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION IN
PART AND DENYING IT IN PART

v.
9
HUGO POWER SUPPLY LLC, et al.,

10

Re: Dkt. No. 22

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
On October 9, 2015, Defendants William Howe and Hugo Power Supply, LLC filed a

13
14

motion to dismiss this action for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue or, in the

15

alternative, to transfer the action to the District of South Carolina. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff opposed

16

the motion, ECF No. 13, and Defendants filed a reply brief, ECF No. 14. The Court subsequently

17

ordered supplemental briefing, which the parties filed, ECF Nos. 16, 17, and continued the hearing

18

on Defendants’ motion from November 19, 2015 to January 7, 2016. ECF No. 15.
On December 21, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation, asking the Court to (1) transfer the

19
20

action to the United States District Court of South Carolina, Charleston Division; (2) refer the case

21

to arbitration, such arbitration to be completed within 120 days of transfer to South Carolina;

22

(3) order the parties mutually to agree upon an arbitrator, and permit the parties to move the

23

federal court in South Carolina to appoint one if the parties cannot agree; (4) effectuate certain

24

other agreements between the parties. ECF No. 22.
The Court now GRANTS that part of the parties’ stipulation that transfers the case to the

25
26

Charleston Division of the District of South Carolina.1 That request is supported by the forum

27
1

28

It appears that transfer to the Charleston Division satisfies the requirements of the District of
South Carolina’s local venue rule, which makes proper any division “[w]here any natural

1

selection clause in the parties’ contract, as well as by their stipulation. The Court will DENY the

2

balance of the parties’ requests without prejudice. Some of the parties’ remaining requests do not

3

require judicial approval, and the rest are more properly directed at the South Carolina judge who

4

will manage this case going forward.

5
6
7
8
9
10

The Clerk is directed to terminate the motion at Docket Number 12. The hearing
scheduled for January 7, 2016 is VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 29, 2015
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
occurred, or where any corporate/other organization defendant does business relating to the events
or omissions alleged.” D.S.C. Civ. L.R. 3.01(A)(1).
2