Filed: Apr. 03, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 03, 2019
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . Chiefly pending before the Court is Defendant Hanson Crawford Crum Family Law Group, LLP's ("Hanson") motion to dismiss this case for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. (ECF No. 15 at 1.) The Court has considered Plaintiff Jeffrey Randall's opposition (ECF No. 22) and Defendant's reply (ECF No. 24). I
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . Chiefly pending before the Court is Defendant Hanson Crawford Crum Family Law Group, LLP's ("Hanson") motion to dismiss this case for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. (ECF No. 15 at 1.) The Court has considered Plaintiff Jeffrey Randall's opposition (ECF No. 22) and Defendant's reply (ECF No. 24). In..
More
ORDER
MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.
Chiefly pending before the Court is Defendant Hanson Crawford Crum Family Law Group, LLP's ("Hanson") motion to dismiss this case for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. (ECF No. 15 at 1.) The Court has considered Plaintiff Jeffrey Randall's opposition (ECF No. 22) and Defendant's reply (ECF No. 24). In its discretion, the Court will transfer this case to the Northern District of California.
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that "[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." Amazon.com v. Cendant Corp., 404 F.Supp.2d 1256, 1259 (W.D. Wash. 2005). "The purpose of this section is to prevent the waste of time, energy, and money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense." Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000) (providing factors to be considered in determining whether transfer is appropriate).
Here, the Court finds that the interests of justice and judicial economy and the weight of related collateral and attendant considerations favor transfer to the Northern District of California where another matter involving the same pertinent transactions—on which Plaintiff's claims here are based—is currently pending in Case No. 3:18-cv-03371-VC ("ND Cal. Case"). (ECF No. 25-1; ECF No. 25-3.)1 Notably, the ND Cal. Case has already established a case schedule. (Id.)
It is therefore ordered that Defendant's alternative motion to transfer this case to United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division to be consolidated with the ongoing litigation in the ND Cal. Case (ECF No. 15) is granted. The Court therefore declines to rule on Defendant's other arguments in support of dismissal. The Court also declines to rule on Defendant's request for sanctions against Plaintiff (id. at 13).
It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a surreply (ECF No. 26) is denied as moot.
The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this case to the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division and close this case.
