Cochran v. Accellion, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: November 5, 2021
• Docket: 5:21-cv-01887
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 SAN JOSE DIVISION 4 5 RICKY COCHRAN, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-01887-EJD 6 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TRANSFER; DENYING MOTION TO 7 v. SEPARATE CASE 8 ACCELLION, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 38, 53 9 Defendants. 10 On July 12, 2021, James Martin moved in this Court to transfer a case that he filed in the 11 Southern District of Indiana to the Northern District of California. Dkt. No. 38. This transfer 12 || request is filed in the wrong court. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(b) requires that the motion to transfer be

13 || filed with the court where the plaintiff's action is filed, i.e., the proposed transferor court. See

v 14 || Mechoshade Sys., Inc. v. Draper, Inc., 2011 WL 1576092, at *3 (D. Ariz. Apr. 27, 2011) (“This

15 Court cannot order courts of another district to transfer their cases here.”). Here, Mr. Martin has 16 || improperly filed his motion with the proposed transferee court, rather than the transferor court.

= 17 For this reason, the Court DENIES Mr. Martin’s motion to transfer.

18 The Court interprets Mr. Martin’s motion to separate his case as a request to opt-out of the 19 || class. Dkt. No. 53. This is not the proper mechanism to opt-out of the class and thus Mr. Martin’s 20 || request is DENIED. Mr. Martin is instructed that he will receive notice of settlement from class 21 counsel and that he will, at that point, be instructed by the notice how to pursue his right to opt-out 22 || of the class. The Court refers Mr. Martin to the putative class counsel, Tina Wolfson. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: November 5, 2021 25 26 EDWARD J. DAVILA 27 United States District Judge 28 || Case No.: 5:21-cv-01887-EJD ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TRANSFER; DENYING MOTION TO SEPARATE CASE