Short v. Hyundai Motor America Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided May 23, 2022·No. 2:19-cv-00318·Unknown

Opinion

The Honorable James L. Robart UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ELIZABETH SNIDER, JENNIFER DIPARDO, ANTHONY DIPARDO, SEANE No. 2:19-cv-318-JLR

GABRIELLE ALEXANDER, TAVISH TRANSFER CASE TO THE U.S. PERRY, WILLIAM PRESSLEY, JEANETT SMITH, AND JANELL WIGHT on behalf of DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v. NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: MAY 23, 2022 HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, KIA AMERICA, INC., and KIA CORPORATION, Defendants.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the parties submit this stipulated motion to transfer this case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Section 1404(a) grants this Court discretion to transfer a case to another district. See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000). It says: “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to

JOINT MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE 1 KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “Litigation of related claims in the same tribunal is strongly favored.” Cray, Inc. v. Raytheon Co., No. C15-1127JLR, 2016 WL 3254997, at *4 (W.D. Wash. June 13, 2016) (quoting Amazon.com v. Cendant Corp., 404 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1261 (W.D. Wash. 2005)). The parties previously sought, and the Court granted, a stay of all deadlines pending resolution of the Class Settlement in In re: Hyundai and Kia Engine Litig. II, No. 8:18-cv-02223, which is proceeding in the Central District of California. See Dkt. 107, 108. At that time, the parties in Engine II believed they were nearing a nationwide class settlement in principle and anticipated moving for preliminary approval. Dkt. 107 at 1. The Short parties believed that a classwide settlement in Engine II could resolve the Short plaintiffs’ claims. Id. To facilitate that resolution, transfer is now appropriate. As indicated in a May 17, 2022 stipulation filed in Engine II, the parties there have “reached a resolution in principle and are in the final stages of memorializing a comprehensive settlement agreement.” Engine II, Dkt. 64 at 1 (May 17, 2022). To incorporate the Short plaintiffs into the ultimate proposed settlement, the parties in Engine II stipulated that counsel would “promptly move for transfer of Short, et al. v. Hyundai Motor Company, et al., No. 2:19-cv-00318-JLR (currently pending in the Western District of Washington) to this Court for consolidation and resolution under the proposed class settlement.” Id. The requirements of Section 1404(a) are met. Because transfer would facilitate the proposed settlement, it would serve the convenience of the parties and the interest of justice. The parties in this action consent to the transfer of this case to the Central District of California, and Defendants have not objected to personal jurisdiction there. The parties respectfully request that

JOINT MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE 2 KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. the Court grant this stipulated motion to transfer this case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. DATED this 23rd day of May, 2022. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &

By s/ Gretchen Freeman Cappio By s/ Alicia Cobb Lynn Lincoln Sarko #16569 Alicia Cobb, #48685 Gretchen Freeman Cappio #29576 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Ryan McDevitt #43305 Seattle, WA 98101 Adele A. Daniel # 53315 Phone (206) 905-7000 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Fax (206) 905-7100 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com (206) 623-1900 Fax (206) 623-3384 Shon Morgan (pro hac vice) lsarko@kellerrohrback.com 865 S. Figueroa St gcappio@kellerrohrback.com Los Angeles, CA 90017 rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com Phone (213) 443-3252 adaniel@kellerrohrback.com Fax (213) 443-3100 shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com Benjamin L. Bailey, pro hac vice Jonathan D. Boggs, pro hac vice Kari Wohlschlegel (pro hac vice) BAILEY GLASSER LLP Christine W. Chen (pro hac vice) 209 Capitol Street 50 California Street, 22nd Floor Charleston, WV 25301 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel.: (304) 345-6555 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 Fax: (304) 342-1110 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 bbailey@baileyglasser.com kariwohlschlegel@quinnemanuel.com jboggs@baileyglasser.com christinechen@quinnemanuel.com W. Daniel “Dee” Miles, III (pro Cristina A. Henriquez (pro hac vice) hac vice forthcoming) 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor H. Clay Barnett, III, pro hac vice Redwood Shores, CA 94065 J. Mitch Williams, pro hac vice Telephone: (650) 801-5000 BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, cristinahenriquez@quinnemanuel.com P.C. 272 Commerce Street Attorneys for Defendants Montgomery, AL 36104 Tel.: (334) 269-2343 Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com Mitch.Williams@Beasleyallen.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

JOINT MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE 3 KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. ORDER Upon the stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 23rd day of May, 2022.

A JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge

JOINT MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE 4 KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Gretchen Freeman Cappio, hereby certify that on May 23, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington using the CM/ECF system, which shall send electronic notification to all counsel of record. s/ Gretchen Freeman Cappio Gretchen Freeman Cappio

4881-7530-9089, v. 1

JOINT MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE 5 KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Short v. Hyundai Motor America Inc, (W.D. Wash. 2022).

Short v. Hyundai Motor America Inc (Short v. Hyundai Motor America Inc) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Viacom, Inc. v. United States
404 F. Supp. 2d 3 (District of Columbia, 2005)
Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc.
211 F.3d 495 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)