Opinion
5:24-cv-01894-SSS-SPx
12-19-2024
Brynn Grossman, et al. v. Brooklyn Bedding
Present: The Honorable Sunshine S. Sykes, United States District Judge
CIVIL MINUTES- GENERAL
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT TRANSFER THE CASE TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
The Court is in receipt of Defendant's Motion to Stay [Dkt. 15] as well as the Opposition [Dkt. 18] and Reply. [Dkt. 19]. Both parties extensively mention a parallel putative class action against Defendant filed in the Northern District of California (“N.D. Cal.”) a year prior to this one with identical factual allegations and the only difference being the named Plaintiff and that this case was initially filed in state court. [Dkt. 15 at 9-10]. Plaintiff opposes the Motion, but in the alternative requests that the Court transfer the case to N.D. Cal. in the name of efficiency so both cases can be consolidated and cites caselaw from N.D. Cal. to demonstrate the Court's authority to do so. [Dkt. 18 at 22-23]. Defendant argues that this is contrary to controlling authority and that this request is a part of Plaintiff's strategy to impose additional costs and inefficiencies on the Defendant and the Court. [Dkt. 19 at 8-9].
Accordingly, the parties are hereby ORDERED to show cause why the Court should not transfer the case to N.D. Cal. The parties are ordered to submit a response to this Order and a joint report by February 14, 2025.
IT IS SO ORDERED.