Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01794/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01794-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INSURATEC, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ELIOS, INC.,

Defendant.

ELIOS, INC.,

Counterclaimant,

v.

INSURATEC, INC.,

Counterdefendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-01794 BZ

ORDER DENYING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

CHANGE OF DIVISION

Before me is defendant, Elios, Inc.’s motion for a change

of division from San Francisco to Oakland. I find no need for

argument.

This case was randomly assigned to a judge in San

Francisco under Civil Local Rule 3-2(d) (action arising out of

Contra Costa County is properly assigned to either the San

Francisco or Oakland division) and not because plaintiff's

Case 3:05-cv-01794-BZ Document 19 Filed 07/11/05 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

counsel resides in San Francisco, as defendant suggests. 

Balancing the interests of justice reflected by the court's

assignment plan against the minimal inconvenience to East Bay

parties and witnesses in coming to San Francisco, given the

close proximity of the San Francisco and Oakland courthouses,

I conclude that defendant's showing is inadequate to support a

transfer. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.

Dated: July 8, 2005

Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\INSURATEC\order denying change of division2.wpd

Case 3:05-cv-01794-BZ Document 19 Filed 07/11/05 Page 2 of 2