Habte v. Bardini

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 12, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-04236
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: August 12, 2024 26 € J PH C. SPERO 27 nited States Magistrate Judge 28