Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01735/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01735-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND FLORES,

Plaintiff,

v.

TESLA, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01735-CDB

ORDER ON STIPULATION TRANSFERRING

ACTION TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR 

DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO THE 

COMPLAINT

(Doc. 11)

Pending before the Court is the stipulation of the parties, filed February 27, 2024, for 

order transferring this action to the Central District of California. (Doc. 11). The parties 

represent that transfer is warranted given that an earlier-filed action pending in that District 

(Reynolds v. Tesla, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-09665-HDV-RAO (C.D. Cal.)) raises substantially 

similar claims as alleged in the action pending before this Court. Id.

Under the first-to-file rule, a court may dismiss a complaint or claim that is duplicative, 

transfer all or parts of the case to the first-filed district or stay all or parts of the case pending a 

decision in the prior-related action. See Heinz v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., No. 2:22-cv02058-TLN-CKD, 2023 WL 4305118, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 2023) (citing Kohn Law Grp., 

Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Miss., Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1239-40 (9th Cir. 2015)).

The Court having considered the parties’ stipulation to transfer and to extend Defendant’s 

deadline to respond to the complaint, the pleading sand other papers on file in this action, as well 

as the factors articulated in Kohn Law Grp., IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. This case shall be transferred to the Central District of California, so that it can be 

Case 1:23-cv-01735-CDB Document 12 Filed 03/01/24 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

related to the earlier-filed matter captioned Reynolds v. Tesla, Inc., Case No. 2:23-

cv-09665-HDB-RAO (C.D. Cal.). 

2. The deadline for Defendant to respond to the complaint shall be extended through 

and including March 19, 2024.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01735-CDB Document 12 Filed 03/01/24 Page 2 of 2