Fisher v. Enterprise Rent-a-Car Company of Los Angeles

Filing 22

ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 17 Motion to Transfer Case. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/29/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
KEANA FISHER, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

Case No. 3:16-cv-05882-RS
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
TRANSFER VENUE

v.
ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY
OF LOS ANGELES,
Defendants.

15
16
Plaintiff Keana Fisher originally filed this putative class action alleging violations of the
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) in San
Mateo County Superior Court. Defendant Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles
(“Enterprise”) removed the case to this court. Enterprise now moves, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a),
to transfer the litigation to the Central District of California. Fisher has not opposed the motion.
District courts have discretion in deciding whether to transfer litigation. See Ventress v.
Japan Airlines, 486 F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[w]eighing of the factors for and against
transfer involves subtle considerations and is best left to the discretion of the trial judge”). In
making the decision, courts may consider factors such as: the plaintiff’s choice of forum, the
parties’ contacts with the forum, the contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the
chosen forum, the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, and the ease of access to
the evidence. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498–99 (9th Cir. 2000).

While the plaintiff’s choice of forum deserves deference, the other factors weigh in favor

1
2

of transfer here. Fisher resides in Riverside County in the Central District and Enterprise is

3

headquartered in Orange County, also in the Central District. The parties executed the agreements

4

at issue in the Central District. Fisher advances no facts to suggest that the Northern District is a

5

more appropriate venue. See Pac. Car & Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968)

6
7
8
9

(dismissing where plaintiff made “no showing worth mentioning that its own convenience would
be served by its choice of forum”). Moreover, given that Fisher has not opposed the motion, her
choice of forum bears less weight. Accordingly, in the interests of justice, this action is
transferred to the Central District of California.1

10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Dated: November 29, 2016
13
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

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

1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), this matter is suitable for disposition without oral argument.
The December 15, 2016 hearing is thus vacated.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER
CASE NO. 3:16-cv-05882-RS

28
2