MORALES v. AMAZON.COM, LLC, 16-cv-06462-TEH. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170315961
Visitors: 8
Filed: Feb. 14, 2017
Latest Update: Feb. 14, 2017
Summary: ORDER VACATING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THELTON E. HENDERSON , District Judge . The Court is presently scheduled to hear oral arguments on February 27, 2017 on Defendants' motion to dismiss. However, the parties have informed the Court that "the parties are currently reviewing and attempting to finalize a joint stipulation to transfer this matter to the Central District of California." ECF No. 33 at 3:18-19. Also, Amazon has stated that it intends to file a motion to transfe
Summary: ORDER VACATING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THELTON E. HENDERSON , District Judge . The Court is presently scheduled to hear oral arguments on February 27, 2017 on Defendants' motion to dismiss. However, the parties have informed the Court that "the parties are currently reviewing and attempting to finalize a joint stipulation to transfer this matter to the Central District of California." ECF No. 33 at 3:18-19. Also, Amazon has stated that it intends to file a motion to transfer..
More
ORDER VACATING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THELTON E. HENDERSON, District Judge.
The Court is presently scheduled to hear oral arguments on February 27, 2017 on Defendants' motion to dismiss. However, the parties have informed the Court that "the parties are currently reviewing and attempting to finalize a joint stipulation to transfer this matter to the Central District of California." ECF No. 33 at 3:18-19. Also, Amazon has stated that it intends to file a motion to transfer the case, regardless of whether the parties can come to a joint stipulation to do so. Id. at 3:20-22.
To promote judicial economy, the Court will not consider the motion to dismiss until after proper venue for this case has been determined. Accordingly, the hearing on the motion to dismiss is VACATED. It will be re-calendared by the Court if transfer to the Central District of California is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
