Pinon v. Tristar Products, Inc., et al.

Filing 55

ORDER Granting 52 Joint Motion to Transfer Venue, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/26/17. Case Transferred to the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division (Cleveland Office). (Gonzalez, R) [Transferred from caed on 10/31/2017.]

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 EDWINA PINON, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, 13 ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE v. 14 15 No. 1:16-cv-00331-DAD-SAB TRISTAR PRODUCTS, INC., DOES 110, inclusive, 16 (Doc. No. 52.) Defendants. 17 This matter is before the court on the parties’ joint motion to transfer this action to the 18 19 United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. (Doc. No. 52.) 20 Plaintiff Edwina Pinon and defendant Tristar Products, Inc. (“Tristar”) have moved for this case 21 to be transferred to the Northern District of Ohio so it can be consolidated with another action1 22 pending before U.S. District Judge James S. Gwin of that court. (Id.) BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff Edwina Pinon initiated this action on March 10, 2016 on behalf of all persons 24 25 who purchased a 2015 Power Pressure Cooker XL (“Pressure Cooker”), which she alleged was 26 defectively designed and caused injuries to the class members. (Doc. No. 1.) This action 27 proceeds on the first amended complaint (“FAC”), which was filed on May 24, 2016. (Doc. No. 28 1 Chapman v. Tristar Products, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-01114 (N.D. Ohio). 1 1 17.) Plaintiff asserted four causes of action in the FAC: (1) breach of express warranty, (2) 2 breach of implied warranty, (3) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301, 3 et seq., and (4) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, California Business & 4 Professions Code § 17200, et seq. (Id.) In terms of relief, plaintiff seeks damages, attorney’s fees 5 and costs, and injunctive relief “requiring Defendants to recall and replace or repair the defective 6 Pressure Cookers, and prohibiting any further misleading or deceptive advertising campaigns.” 7 (Id. at 15.) On June 10, 2016, defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff’s injunctive relief claim for 8 lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 19.) That motion was denied by this court on 9 September 1, 2016. (Doc. No. 26.) Thereafter, the parties attended an initial scheduling 10 conference before U. S. Magistrate Judge Stanley Boone on December 13, 2016. (Doc. No. 34.) 11 On May 26, 2017, plaintiff filed a notice of settlement with the court. (Doc. No. 48.) This joint 12 motion to change venue was filed on September 11, 2017. (Doc. No. 52.) Initially this motion 13 was set for hearing on October 17, 2017, but the court vacated the hearing date on October 5, 14 2017, finding the motion to be properly resolved on the papers without the need for oral 15 argument. (Doc. No. 54.) 16 17 LEGAL STANDARD A district court may transfer the venue of any civil action to another district or division 18 where it could have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented. 19 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The change of venue provision “is to prevent the waste of time, energy and 20 money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and 21 expense.” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (internal quotation marks omitted); 22 Anderson v. Michaels Stores, Inc., No. CIV. 2:14-500 WBS, 2014 WL 1613952, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 23 Apr. 22, 2014). When ruling on a motion to transfer venue, courts evaluate three elements: (1) 24 convenience for the parties; (2) convenience for the witnesses; and (3) the interests of justice. Id.; 25 Safarian v. Maserati N. Am., Inc., 559 F.Supp.2d 1068, 1071 (C.D. Cal. 2008). In making the 26 determination, the Ninth Circuit has considered factors such as, but not limited to, the plaintiff’s 27 choice of forum, the parties’ contacts with the forum, contacts resulting in plaintiff’s cause of 28 action in the chosen forum, different costs of litigation between the two forums, ease of access to 2 1 evidence, and feasibility of consolidating other claims. See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 2 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000); Decker Coal. Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 3 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson, 2014 WL 1613952 at *2. 4 5 DISCUSSION Here, the parties jointly move this court to transfer this action to the United States District 6 Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division (Cleveland Office), to be consolidated 7 with a pending class action there against the same defendant. (Doc. No. 52 at 1.) Since this is a 8 joint motion, the court concludes that the new forum will be convenient for both parties. Plaintiff 9 has represented that this action has been settled, so the court does not need to consider 10 convenience for any witnesses. It is in line with the interests of justice to transfer this action to 11 the Northern District of Ohio, to allow the parties to petition for consolidation with the pending 12 case which has also settled. If the cases are consolidated, transferring the case would promote 13 efficient administration of justice, as only one court would have to provide preliminary approval, 14 class-wide notice, claims administration, and final approval of the proposed settlement 15 agreement. 16 CONCLUSION 17 For the forgoing reasons, the court grants the parties’ joint motion to transfer this action to 18 the Northern District of Ohio. Accordingly, this action is transferred to the United States District 19 Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division (Cleveland Office). 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: October 26, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?