Giordano v. NVIDIA Corporation

Filing 18

ORDER that the Parties Joint Motion to Transfer Venue ECF No. 14 is GRANTED. This action is TRANSFERRED to the Northern District of California, by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 9/24/2015.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00507-WYD-MEH
GARRET GIORDANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
NVIDIA CORPORATION,
Defendant.

ORDER TO TRANSFER VENUE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Parties’ Joint Motion to Transfer
Venue (ECF No. 14), filed September 16, 2015. In the motion, the parties jointly
request that I enter an order transferring this action to the Northern District of California
in order to “promote justice and efficiency, greatly reduce the burden of litigation on
these parties, conserve judicial resources,” and serve the parties’ and the Court’s best
interests. (Mot. at 1).
By way of background, Plaintiff Giordano filed the instant action against
Defendant NVIDIA on behalf of himself and a class of purchasers of graphics and video
cards. In addition to this matter, a total of 13 related putative class action complaints
have been filed since February 2015, nine of which were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California. To date, eight of these nine related actions have
been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under
the caption In re NVIDIA GTX 970 Graphics Chip Litigation, Lead Case No.

3:15-cv-00760-CRB (N.D. Cal.) (“the Consolidated Proceeding”). The parties thus
respectfully and jointly request that I transfer this action to the Northern District of
California for inclusion in the related consolidated actions pending in the Northern
District of California.
“[F]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a
district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might
have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Section 1404(a) was designed to allow an
“easy change of venue within a unified federal system.” Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno,
454 U.S. 235, 254 (1981). It accords district courts “broad discretion,” Stewart Org., Inc.
v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 31 (1988), to transfer actions to another district “to prevent
the waste of time, energy and money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public
against unnecessary inconvenience and expense,” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S.
612, 616 (1964) (quotations omitted).
For the reasons stated in the parties’ joint motion, I find that all interests and
factors favor the transfer of this action to the Northern District of California. NVIDIA is
located in the Northern District of California, the events relevant to the claims asserted
in the Related Actions occurred there, and the witnesses and documents relevant to the
claims are located there as well. Nine of the Related Actions, including the first-filed
case, were filed in that District. Moreover, all of the complaints involve the same subject
matter, facts and circumstances, virtually identical questions of fact, and the same
essential legal issues, as the Related Actions in the Consolidated Proceeding.
Accordingly, I find that a transfer will serve the interests of judicial economy and
-2-

efficiency, benefitting both parties as well as the Court, and all other third parties who
would be unnecessarily inconvenienced by having several, identical actions litigated in
multiple courts.
It is ORDERED that the Parties’ Joint Motion to Transfer Venue (ECF No. 14) is
GRANTED. This action is TRANSFERRED to the Northern District of California.
Dated: September 24, 2015
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
WILEY Y. DANIEL,
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-