From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Habte v. Bardini

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Aug 12, 2024
24-cv-04236-JCS (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024)

Opinion

24-cv-04236-JCS

08-12-2024

ROBEL KIROS HABTE, Plaintiff, v. EMILIA M. BARDINI, et al., Defendants.


ORDER FOR BRIEFING

JOSEPH C. SPERO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The parties have filed a stipulation to transfer venue in this case to the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Dkt. no. 10. In determining whether a Section 1404(a) transfer is appropriate, the court must undertake an “individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.” See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000). In doing so, “the court must evaluate the appropriate factors even though the parties now stipulate to the transfer.” Tung Tai Grp. v. Fla. Transformer, Inc., No. 5:11-cv-02389 EJD(HRL), 2011 WL 3471400, at *2 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 8, 2011) (citing White v. ABCO Eng'g Corp., 199 F.3d 140, 144 (3d Cir.1999)). Accordingly, the parties are requested to submit a joint brief, not to exceed ten (10) pages, along with any supporting evidence deemed appropriate, that will allow the Court to conduct the required individualized inquiry.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Habte v. Bardini

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Aug 12, 2024
24-cv-04236-JCS (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024)
Case details for

Habte v. Bardini

Case Details

Full title:ROBEL KIROS HABTE, Plaintiff, v. EMILIA M. BARDINI, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Aug 12, 2024

Citations

24-cv-04236-JCS (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024)