Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04097/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04097-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM J RUMLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF 

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-04097-PJH 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

TRANSFER VENUE AND VACATING 

HEARING

Re: Dkt. No. 8

Before the court is the parties’ joint motion to transfer venue. The matter is fully 

briefed and suitable for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for 

October 30, 2019 is VACATED. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered 

their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and the deadline to oppose the motion

having passed with none filed, and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS the 

motion.

“For 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “Before a court may transfer venue under 28 

U.S.C. § 1404, it must find that: (i) the action is one that might have been brought in the 

transferee court and (ii) the convenience of the parties and the interest of justice favor the 

transfer.” Thermolife Int'l, LLC v. Vital Pharm., Inc., No. CV142449RSWLAGRX, 2014 

WL 12235190, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2014). The purpose of § 1404(a) is to “prevent 

the waste of time, energy and money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public 

against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 

Case 4:19-cv-04097-PJH Document 10 Filed 10/01/19 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

616 (1964) (internal quotation marks omitted).

While there is no rigid test to determine whether a court should grant a motion to 

transfer, the statute identifies three factors that should be considered on a motion to 

transfer: (1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the convenience of the witnesses; and 

(3) the interest of justice. The Ninth Circuit has articulated related considerations that

courts “may consider,” including: “(1) the location where the relevant agreements were 

negotiated and executed, (2) the state that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the 

plaintiff's choice of forum, (4) the respective parties' contacts with the forum, (5) the 

contacts relating to the plaintiff's cause of action in the chosen forum, (6) the differences 

in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the availability of compulsory process to 

compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) the ease of access to 

sources of proof.” Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498–99 (9th Cir. 2000). 

“No single factor is dispositive, and a district court has broad discretion to adjudicate 

motions for transfer on a case-by-case basis.” Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. 

Kempthorne, Case No. 08-cv-1339-CW, 2008 WL 4543043, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 

2008).

The parties have filed a joint, or stipulated-to, motion to transfer this action to the 

District Court of the Eastern District of California. The court finds that the action is one 

that might have been brought in the transferee court because it raises a federal question

based on events that occurred in that district, and defendants reside and/or are located in 

that district. The court additionally finds that the convenience of the parties and the 

interest of justice favor transfer because the alleged events giving rise to the litigation

occurred in the Eastern District of California, relevant witnesses work and live in that 

district, and the parties all desire the transfer, which is strong evidence of its convenience 

for them.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby GRANTS the motion to transfer the 

action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The 

Case 4:19-cv-04097-PJH Document 10 Filed 10/01/19 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

October 30, 2019 hearing is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2019

/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-04097-PJH Document 10 Filed 10/01/19 Page 3 of 3