Flores v. Tesla, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 RAYMOND FLORES, Case No. 1:23-cv-01735-CDB

9 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION TRANSFERRING ACTION TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF 10 v. CALIFORNIA

11 TESLA, INC., ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO THE 12 Defendant. COMPLAINT

13 (Doc. 11)

15 Pending before the Court is the stipulation of the parties, filed February 27, 2024, for 16 order transferring this action to the Central District of California. (Doc. 11). The parties 17 represent that transfer is warranted given that an earlier-filed action pending in that District 18 (Reynolds v. Tesla, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-09665-HDV-RAO (C.D. Cal.)) raises substantially 19 similar claims as alleged in the action pending before this Court. Id. 20 Under the first-to-file rule, a court may dismiss a complaint or claim that is duplicative, 21 transfer all or parts of the case to the first-filed district or stay all or parts of the case pending a 22 decision in the prior-related action. See Heinz v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., No. 2:22-cv- 23 02058-TLN-CKD, 2023 WL 4305118, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 2023) (citing Kohn Law Grp., 24 Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Miss., Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1239-40 (9th Cir. 2015)). 25 The Court having considered the parties’ stipulation to transfer and to extend Defendant’s 26 deadline to respond to the complaint, the pleading sand other papers on file in this action, as well 27 as the factors articulated in Kohn Law Grp., IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1 related to the earlier-filed matter captioned Reynolds v. Tesla, Inc., Case No. 2:23- 2 cv-09665-HDB-RAO (C.D. Cal.). 3 2. The deadline for Defendant to respond to the complaint shall be extended through 4 and including March 19, 2024. 5 | IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _-Mareh 1, 2024 | nnd Rr 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28