Granite Rock Corporation et al v. Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers et al

Filing 14

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 7 Motion to Change Venue (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2012)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

GRANITE ROCK CORPORATION,
et al.,

8
Plaintiffs,

No. C 12-2579 PJH

9
v.
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
PENSION TRUST FUND FOR
OPERATING ENGINEERS, et al.,

12

ORDER DENYING MOTION
TO TRANSFER

Defendants.
_______________________________/

13
14

Before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to transfer this action to the San Jose Division of

15

this court, where the action was originally filed. Defendants have filed a statement of non-

16

opposition to the motion. Having read the plaintiffs’ papers and carefully considered their

17

arguments, the court DENIES the motion.

18

Plaintiffs filed the complaint in this action with the clerk of the San Jose Division of

19

this court, on May 18, 2012. At that time, the case was randomly assigned to a United

20

States Magistrate Judge sitting in the Oakland Courthouse. On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs filed

21

a notice of declination to proceed before a magistrate judge, and requested reassignment

22

to a United States District Judge. Also on June 8, 2012, plaintiffs filed the present motion

23

to transfer the action to the San Jose Division, for the convenience of parties and

24

witnesses. On June 13, 2012, the case was reassigned to the undersigned.

25

The court’s Executive Committee has taken steps to alleviate a potentially severe

26

imbalance in the assignment of civil cases between the Court's two major divisions – San

27

Francisco/Oakland and San Jose – resulting from the departure of District Judge Jeremy

28

Fogel. Judge Fogel is taking a multi-year leave from the Court to head the Federal Judicial

1

Center in Washington, D.C. Until the judicial vacancy caused by Judge Fogel's departure

2

is filled, there will be only two active district judges in the San Jose Division – a number

3

insufficient to manage the division's civil case workload under the existing assignment plan.

4

Accordingly, on August 2, 2011, the Executive Committee ordered that, effective

5

immediately, all new civil cases that would have been assigned to District Judge Jeremy

6

Fogel will be randomly reassigned on a district-wide basis to other active district judges. As

7

reflected in the Executive Committee order, the purpose of this action is to “maintain an

8

equitable system for a proportionate division of civil cases among the district judges and

9

magistrate judges,” as reflected in Civil Local Rules 3-2 and 3-3, and General Order No. 44.
The court refers plaintiffs to the court’s website, to the link for the Notice entitled

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

“Notice Regarding District-Wide Assignment of San Jose Civil Cases.” While the court

12

retains the ability to order intra-district transfer pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-2(h), which

13

has not been abrogated, the court declines to do so unless a failure to transfer would work

14

an undue hardship on the parties. Here, the court finds that no hardship will befall the

15

parties if this matter is retained in Oakland, and in the interest of complying with the

16

Executive Committee order, the motion to transfer is DENIED.

17
18
19
20

Of course, the parties are always free to consent to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate
Judge in the San Jose Division. However, all parties must agree.
The date for the hearing on this motion, previously noticed for July 25, 2012, is
VACATED.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: June 22, 2012
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2