Habte v. Bardini

Opinion

1 2 3 6 ROBEL KIROS HABTE, 7 Case No. 24-cv-04236-JCS Plaintiff, 8 9 Vv. ORDER FOR BRIEFING

10 EMILIA M. BARDINI, et al., Defendants. 11 qg 12

13 The parties have filed a stipulation to transfer venue in this case to the Central District of

v 14 California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Dkt. no. 10. In determining whether a Section 1404(a)

15 transfer is appropriate, the court must undertake an “individualized, case-by-case consideration of a 16 convenience and fairness.” See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir.

= 17 || 2000). In doing so, “the court must evaluate the appropriate factors even though the parties now

18 stipulate to the transfer.” Tung Tai Grp. v. Fla. Transformer, Inc., No. 5:11—cv—02389 EJD(HRL), 19 ) 2011 WL 3471400, at *2 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 8, 2011) (citing White v. ABCO Eng'g Corp., 199 F.3d 20 140, 144 (3d Cir.1999)). Accordingly, the parties are requested to submit a joint brief, not to 21 exceed ten (10) pages, along with any supporting evidence deemed appropriate, that will allow the 22 Court to conduct the required individualized inquiry. 24 25 Dated: August 12, 2024 26 € J PH C. SPERO 27 nited States Magistrate Judge 28