The factors used in the convenience analysis are: (1) plaintiff's choice of forum, (2) convenience of the parties, (3) convenience of the witnesses, (4) ease of access to the evidence, (5) familiarity of each forum with the applicable law, (6) feasibility of consolidation of other claims, (7) any local interest in the controversy, and (8) the relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum. See, e.g., Lax v. Toyota Motor Corp., 65 F. Supp. 3d 772, 776 (N.D. Cal. 2014); Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., 823 F. Supp. 2d 980,993 (N.D. Cal. 2011); Vu v. Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc., 602 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2009). "The party seeking transfer has the burden of showing that transfer is appropriate." Sarinana v. DS Waters of Am., Inc., No. C-13-0905 EMC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95649, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2013). II. MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL
"The party seeking transfer has the burden of showing that transfer is appropriate." Sarinana v. DS Waters of Am., Inc., No. C-13-0905 EMC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95649, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2013). DISCUSSION
But while this factor can sometimes be a weighty one under other circumstances, it is afforded less deference when, as here, the action is brought as a class action on behalf of a representative class. Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Sarinana v. DS Waters of Am., Inc., No. C-13-0905 EMC, 2013 WL 3456687, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2013) (explaining that "the weight accorded to the plaintiff's choice [of venue] is decreased in cases where the action is brought as a class action."). Moreover, "a plaintiff's choice is also given less deference when the plaintiff resides outside of the chosen forum."
(1) plaintiffs' choice of forum, (2) convenience of the parties, (3) convenience of the witnesses, (4) ease of access to the evidence, (5) familiarity of each forum with the applicable law, (6) feasibility of consolidation with other claims, (7) any local interest in the controversy, and (8) the relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum. See Sarinana v. DS Waters of Am., Inc., No. 13-0905, 2013 WL 3456687, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted); see alsoJones, 211 F.3d at 498-99 (laying out relevant factors when considering a motion to transfer). Here, the relevant factors counsel transferring venue to the Central or Southern District of California.