Summary
The court transfers Beagle Labs, Inc. and related plaintiffs’ action against AppFolio, Inc. from the Northern District of California to the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court finds that the transferee district is more convenient for the parties, witnesses, and litigation, has less congested dockets, and better serves the interests of justice. The court also orders AppFolio to maintain the status quo pending further order of the transferee court.
Holdings
- The action could properly have been filed in the Central District of California because AppFolio resides there for venue purposes based on its principal place of business in Santa Barbara County.
- Transfer to the Central District of California was warranted because the applicable convenience and interests-of-justice factors, including the location of relevant witnesses and conduct, relative docket congestion, and protection against forum shopping, favored the Central District.
- Defendant was required to continue maintaining the status quo pending further order of the Central District of California.
Questions Presented
- Whether the action could have been brought in the Central District of California for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- Whether the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice favored transferring the action from the Northern District of California to the Central District of California.
- Whether Defendant should be required to maintain the status quo pending further order of the transferee court.
Disposition
remanded
Cases Cited (12)
- Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- State of Cal. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 286 F. Supp. 3d 1054, 1059 (N.D. Cal. 2018)(followed)
- Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
- In re Link_A_Media Devices Corp., 662 F.3d 1221, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(followed)
- Thomas v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., No. 21-CV-02720-LB, 2021 WL 2434032, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2021)(followed)
- Park v. Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc., 964 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1093, 1095 (N.D. Cal. 2013)(followed)
- Los Angeles Mem'l Coliseum Comm'n v. Nat'l Football League, 89 F.R.D. 497, 501 (C.D. Cal. 1981)(followed)
- Metz v. U.S. Life Ins. Co. in City of New York, 674 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1147 (C.D. Cal. 2009)(followed)
- Bhd. of Maint. of Way Employes Div./IBT v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 485 F. Supp. 3d 1048, 1062 (D. Neb. 2020)(followed)
- Hendricks v. StarKist Co., No. 13-CV-729 YGR, 2014 WL 1245880, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2014)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 12.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…