Epitech, Inc. v. Krause

Full title: Epitech, Inc. et al. v. Garrett Krause et al

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California

Date published: Aug 13, 2015

CV 15-05672 SJO (AGRx) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2015)

Opinion

Epitech, Inc. et al. v. Garrett Krause et al No. CV 15-05672 SJO (AGRx) United States District Court, C.D. California August 13, 2015

          PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FILED IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [Docket No. 3]

          HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On June 12, 2015, Defendant Garrett Krause (" Defendant") filed a motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Plaintiffs Epitech, Inc., Patrick Moore, William Grivas, Claudia Fullerton, Newtonhill LTD, and Hill Family Trust (collectively, " Plaintiffs") in the Southern District of California (" Southern District"). Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (" Motion") raised several grounds for dismissal, including improper venue. ( See generally Mot., ECF No. 3-1.)

         On July 24, 2015, the Honorable Marilyn L. Huff (" Judge Huff"), the Southern District judge presiding over this lawsuit, issued an order transferring the case to this Court. ( See generally Order Transferring Pls.' Action to the Central Dist. of Cal. (" Transfer Order"), ECF No. 10.) In the Transfer Order, Judge Huff noted that none of Plaintiffs' allegations in the complaint gave rise to the inference that a substantial part of the events or omissions underlying their claims had occurred in the Southern District. (Transfer Order 3-4.) Because Defendant allegedly has business offices in this District, and based on Plaintiffs' request that the case be transferred to this Court rather than dismissed for improper venue, Judge Huff transferred the lawsuit to the Central District of California. (Transfer Order 5.) The Transfer Order did not address Defendant's additional grounds for dismissal. (Transfer Order 5.)

         Defendant's pending Motion to Dismiss, which was addressed in part by Judge Huff's Transfer Order, is DENIED without prejudice. Defendant is must file a response to Plaintiffs' complaint, no later than 14 days from the date of this Order.

         The Scheduling Conference currently set for September 14, 2015 (ECF No. 16), is hereby continued to October 19, 2015, at 8:30 am. The parties' Rule 26 Meeting Report is due by October 5, 2015.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.