Heldt v. Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd

Filing 44

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 22 Motion to Transfer Venue to Central District of California. The hearing scheduled for August 11, 2015 is hereby VACATED. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/16/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
10

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

STEVEN HELDT,
Plaintiff,
v.
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD.,
Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01696-YGR
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE CENTRAL
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Re: Dkt. No. 22

Now pending before the Court is defendant Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd.’s motion to
transfer venue to the Central District of California. (Dkt. No. 22.) Transfer under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1404(a) to a venue where the case could have been brought is up to the discretion of the Court
after an “individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.” Stewart Org. v.
Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988). The Ninth Circuit has recognized at least ten factors a
district court may consider in its analysis under Section 1404(a). Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc.
et al., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court has carefully reviewed the papers submitted and
considered issues of convenience and fairness, and finds that transfer to the Central District of
California is not appropriate. Assuming without deciding that the case could have been brought in
the Central District, defendant has failed to show that the Central District is more convenient or
that transfer would serve the interests of justice. Accordingly, defendant’s motion is DENIED and
the hearing scheduled for August 11, 2015, is hereby VACATED.
This order terminates Docket No. 22.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 16, 2015

______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE