Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05882/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05882-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Enterprise Rent-a-Car Company of Los Angeles
Defendant
Keana Fisher
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KEANA FISHER, Individually and on 

Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY 

OF LOS ANGELES, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:16-cv-05882-RS 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

TRANSFER VENUE 

Plaintiff Keana Fisher originally filed this putative class action alleging violations of the 

Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) in San 

Mateo County Superior Court. Defendant Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles 

(“Enterprise”) removed the case to this court. Enterprise now moves, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), 

to transfer the litigation to the Central District of California. Fisher has not opposed the motion. 

District courts have discretion in deciding whether to transfer litigation. See Ventress v. 

Japan Airlines, 486 F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[w]eighing of the factors for and against 

transfer involves subtle considerations and is best left to the discretion of the trial judge”). In 

making the decision, courts may consider factors such as: the plaintiff’s choice of forum, the 

parties’ contacts with the forum, the contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the 

chosen forum, the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, and the ease of access to 

the evidence. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498–99 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Case 3:16-cv-05882-RS Document 22 Filed 11/29/16 Page 1 of 2
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-05882-RS

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 Californi

a

While the plaintiff’s choice of forum deserves deference, the other factors weigh in favor 

of transfer here. Fisher resides in Riverside County in the Central District and Enterprise is 

headquartered in Orange County, also in the Central District. The parties executed the agreements 

at issue in the Central District. Fisher advances no facts to suggest that the Northern District is a 

more appropriate venue. See Pac. Car & Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968) 

(dismissing where plaintiff made “no showing worth mentioning that its own convenience would 

be served by its choice of forum”). Moreover, given that Fisher has not opposed the motion, her 

choice of forum bears less weight. Accordingly, in the interests of justice, this action is 

transferred to the Central District of California.1

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 29, 2016 

______________________________________ 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

United States District Judge 

 

1

 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), this matter is suitable for disposition without oral argument. 

The December 15, 2016 hearing is thus vacated. 

Case 3:16-cv-05882-RS Document 22 Filed 11/29/16 Page 2 of 2