STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO TRANSFER VENUE TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

STIPULATION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), Plaintiff PET FOOD EXPRESS LTD and Defendants APPLIED UNDERWRITERS INC., APPLIED UNDERWRITERS CAPTIVE RISK ASSURANCE, INC., AND CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. (collectively "the Parties"), through their counsel of record, file this Stipulation to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, and in support therefore, respectfully show:

On February 18 2016, Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint") against defendants Applied Underwriters, Inc. ("Applied"), Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc. ("AUCRA") and California Insurance Company ("CIC") (collectively the "Applied Defendants") in Alameda County Superior Court. On March 29, 2016, the Applied Defendants removed this action to this Court. See Dkt. 1. In its Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of California employers who purchased an EquityComp® workers' compensation program (the "EquityComp® Program") from the Applied Defendants within four years prior to the filing of the Complaint. See Complaint ("Compl.") ¶ 25. Plaintiff's Complaint asserts four claims for relief against the Applied Defendants: violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.), rescission, declaratory relief and fraud.

Prior to the filing of this action, Shasta Linen Supply, Inc. ("Shasta Linen") filed a putative class action in the United Stated District Court for the Eastern District of California involving the same workers' compensation program. In Shasta Linen Supply, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc., et al., United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:16-cv-00158-WBS-AC (the "Shasta Linen action"), Shasta Linen seeks to represent a class of California employers who purchased the EquityComp® Program. See Dkt. 16 (Request for Judicial Notice ("RJN"), Exh. A). The matter has been assigned the Honorable William B. Shubb. The Shasta Linen action was initially filed in the Eastern District of California on January 26, 2016. Shasta Linen filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Shasta FAC") on April 8, 2016. RJN, Exh. B. The Shasta FAC asserts claims for relief against the Applied Defendants for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.) and for fraud.

Defendants filed a motion to transfer venue of this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and in the alternative to stay or dismiss this action pursuant to the first-to-file rule ("Motion to Transfer"). The Motion to Transfer is scheduled to be heard on June 23, 2016. The Applied Defendants moved on the ground that venue for the instant action would be proper in the Eastern District, that the Shasta Linen action involves the same factual and legal issues, many of the same witnesses and evidence as the instant action, and seeks to certify a class of California employers, and that the interests of justice support a transfer to avoid the risk of inconsistent rulings and the unnecessary duplication of effort and expense.

Separately, the Applied Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, in part, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), scheduled to be heard on July 28, 2016.

Plaintiff does not oppose the Applied Defendants' Motion to Transfer. By this Stipulation, the Parties agree that a transfer to the Eastern District would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and that a transfer would promote the interests of justice.

On a motion to transfer, the moving party or the parties by stipulation must show that the transferee court has complete personal jurisdiction over all defendants and subject matter jurisdiction over the claims and that venue is appropriate.

The instant action could have been brought in the Eastern District. Each of the Applied Defendants has sufficient "continuous and systematic" contacts with California to establish general jurisdiction within the state. See Complaint ¶ 28 (stating that the putative class includes more than 100 California employers to whom the EquityComp® Program was sold); RJN, Exh. B ¶ 35 ("The proposed class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable."). The Applied Defendants are deemed to reside, and personal jurisdiction exists, in any district within the state in which their contacts would be sufficient to subject them to personal jurisdiction, which includes the Eastern District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(d). Venue is proper for a defendant corporation in any district in which a court has personal jurisdiction over that corporation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)-(d). Subject matter jurisdiction is satisfied under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 because (1) one or more members of the putative class are citizens of states different from one or more of the defendants, (2) the proposed class consists of more than 100 members and (3) the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(5)(B), and 1332(d)(6); see also Dkt. 1 (Notice of Removal).

In light of the above, the instant action could have been brought in the Eastern District of California and a transfer of venue to that district is appropriate.

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

I hereby attest that I have obtained the concurrence of John Douglas Moore, counsel for Plaintiffs, for the filing of this stipulation.

ORDER

The Court finds that venue would be proper in the Eastern District of California, that a transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and that a transfer would promote the interest of justice to avoid the risk of inconsistent rulings and unnecessary duplication of effort and expense. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and the stipulation of the parties, this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The Parties shall request a hearing date for the Applied Defendants' pending motion to dismiss from the assigned judge after transfer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.