Heldt v. Tata Consultancy Services, LTD

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01696

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying {{22}} Motion to Transfer Venue to Central District of California. The hearing scheduled for August 11, 2015 is hereby VACATED.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 STEVEN HELDT, 7 Case No. 15-cv-01696-YGR Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION 9 TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE CENTRAL TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD., DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 22 11 12 Northern District of California Now pending before the Court is defendant Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd.'s motion to United States District Court 13 transfer venue to the Central District of California. (Dkt. No. 22.) Transfer under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 14 1404(a) to a venue where the case could have been brought is up to the discretion of the Court 15 after an "individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness." Stewart Org. v. 16 Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988). The Ninth Circuit has recognized at least ten factors a 17 district court may consider in its analysis under Section 1404(a). Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc. 18 et al., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court has carefully reviewed the papers submitted and 19 considered issues of convenience and fairness, and finds that transfer to the Central District of 20 California is not appropriate. Assuming without deciding that the case could have been brought in 21 the Central District, defendant has failed to show that the Central District is more convenient or 22 that transfer would serve the interests of justice. Accordingly, defendant's motion is DENIED and 23 the hearing scheduled for August 11, 2015, is hereby VACATED. 24 This order terminates Docket No. 22. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: July 16, 2015 ______________________________________ 27 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 28