Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

ERAMI v. JpMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 2:15-cv-0727-MCE-EFB. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20150605945 Visitors: 16
Filed: Jun. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 03, 2015
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , Chief District Judge . This is a wage and hour class action originally filed by Plaintiff Mitra Erami in the Solano County Superior Court and removed to this Court under the provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d). Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California (ECF No. 8). According to Plaintiff's counsel, he was under the mistaken belief that Plaintiff work
More

ORDER

This is a wage and hour class action originally filed by Plaintiff Mitra Erami in the Solano County Superior Court and removed to this Court under the provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California (ECF No. 8). According to Plaintiff's counsel, he was under the mistaken belief that Plaintiff worked in Solano County rather than on Solano Avenue in Berkeley, California. According to attorney Wynne, because of that error, he filed in Solano County rather than Alameda County, where the City of Berkeley is located. Decl. of Edward J. Wynne, ECF No. 8-2, ¶¶ 2-3. Alameda County is within the Northern District of California.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), Plaintiff represents that venue in the Northern District is more convenient both for witnesses and the parties, and that the interests of justice will accordingly be served by such a transfer. He points out that Plaintiff worked in Berkeley, lives in Richmond, and that most of his fellow employees and supervisors likely live in the area encompassed by the Northern District. Plaintiff's counsel informed the Court that he met and conferred with defense counsel on April 16, 2015, and that Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff's transfer request. Wynne Decl., ¶ 4. Indeed, no opposition has been filed.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer (ECF No. 8), is GRANTED. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the above-captioned case is hereby transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer