Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02338/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02338-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY FERRANTINO,

Plaintiff,

v.

WORLD PRIVATE SECURITY, INC; 

WALMART STORES, INC.,

Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-2338 KJM DB PS

ORDER

Plaintiff Anthony Ferrantino is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred 

to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending 

before the court are plaintiff’s motion to transfer and defendant Walmart Inc.’s answer. (ECF 

Nos. 13 & 17.)

I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer

On June 25, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to transfer this matter to the Northern District of 

California. (ECF No. 13.) The one-page motion states in a vague and conclusory manner that the 

transfer is “in consideration of . . . better conservation of court’s time and resources[.]” (Id.) The 

motion, however, was not noticed for hearing as required by Local Rule 230.

Moreover, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(b), a federal court is authorized to transfer an 

action from one district to another, upon motion, consent, or stipulation of all parties. The court 

Case 2:18-cv-02338-KJM-DB Document 22 Filed 02/24/20 Page 1 of 4
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

may transfer an action to any district where it might have been brought “[f]or the convenience of 

parties and witnesses” and “in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Ventress v. Japan 

Airlines, 486 F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir. 2007).

However, the moving party must first establish that the matter “might have been brought” 

in the district to which transfer is sought. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “This includes demonstrating that 

subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue would have been proper if the 

plaintiff had filed the action in the district to which transfer is sought.” Catch Curve, Inc. v. 

Venali, Inc., Case No. CV 05-2820 DDP (AJWx), 2006 WL 4568799, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 

2006); see Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343-44 (1960). If plaintiff makes the necessary 

showing, the court must consider: (1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the convenience of the 

witnesses; and (3) the interests of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); see Szegedy v. Keystone Food 

Prod., Inc., No. CV 08-5369 CAS (FFMx), 2009 WL 2767683 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2009) (citing 

Los Angeles Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n v. N.F.L., 89 F.R.D. 497, 499 (C.D. Cal. 1981)).

Here, plaintiff’s motion makes no attempt to make the necessary showing. Accordingly, 

plaintiff’s motion will be denied without prejudice to renewal. 

II. Defendant’s Answer

Because defendant has filed an answer, the undersigned finds good cause to set this matter 

for a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s June 25, 2019 motion to transfer (ECF No. 13) is denied without prejudice 

to renewal.

2. A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is set for Friday, April 10, 2020, at 10:00 

a.m. at the United States District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 

27 before the undersigned.

3. All parties are required to appear at the Status Conference, either by counsel or, if 

proceeding in propria persona, on his or her own behalf. Any party may appear at the status 

conference telephonically if the party pre-arranges such appearance by contacting Pete Buzo, the 

Case 2:18-cv-02338-KJM-DB Document 22 Filed 02/24/20 Page 2 of 4
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

3

courtroom deputy of the undersigned magistrate judge, at (916) 930-4128, no later than 48 hours 

before the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference; a party may not appear telephonically over a 

cellphone.

4. Plaintiff shall file and serve a status report on or before March 27, 2020, and 

defendant shall file and serve a status report on or before April 3, 2020. Each party’s status 

report shall address all of the following matters:

a. Progress of service of process;

b. Possible joinder of additional parties;

c. Possible amendment of the pleadings;

d. Jurisdiction and venue;

e. Anticipated motions and the scheduling thereof;

f. Anticipated discovery and the scheduling thereof, including 

disclosure of expert witnesses;

g. Future proceedings, including the setting of appropriate cut-off 

dates for discovery and for law and motion, and the scheduling of a 

final pretrial conference and trial;

h. Modification of standard pretrial procedures specified by the rules 

due to the relative simplicity or complexity of the action;

i. Whether the case is related to any other case, including matters in 

bankruptcy;

j. Whether the parties will stipulate to the magistrate judge assigned 

to this matter acting as settlement judge, waiving any 

disqualification by virtue of her so acting, or whether they prefer to 

have a Settlement Conference before another magistrate judge;

k. Whether the parties intend to consent to proceed before a United 

States Magistrate Judge; and

l. Any other matters that may aid in the just and expeditious 

disposition of this action.

////

////

////

////

////

Case 2:18-cv-02338-KJM-DB Document 22 Filed 02/24/20 Page 3 of 4
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

4

5. The parties are cautioned that failure to file a status report or failure to appear at the 

status conference may result in an order imposing an appropriate sanction. See Local Rules 110 

and 183.

Dated: February 21, 2020

DLB:6

DB/orders/orders.pro se/ferrantino2338.trans.ossc.ord

Case 2:18-cv-02338-KJM-DB Document 22 Filed 02/24/20 Page 4 of 4