The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Hon. Saundra B. Armstrong
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO TRANSFER
This matter is presently before the Court on Defendants CitiMortgage, Inc., Citibank, N.A., and Citigroup Inc.'s Unopposed Motion to Transfer to the Central District of California (the "Motion to Transfer"). The Court finds that instant motion, which is unopposed by Plaintiffs, may be resolved without oral argument. Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); Civ.L.R. 7-1(a).
Having considered all of the papers and argument submitted in support of the Motion to Transfer, considering that Plaintiffs do not oppose transfer, and good cause appearing therefore, the Court rules as follows.
"For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In determining whether transfer is appropriate in a particular case, courts consider private and public factors affecting the convenience of the forum. Private factors include: (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (2) the convenience of the witnesses and parties, (3) the ease of access to sources of proof, (4) the respective parties' contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff's cause of action in the chosen forum, (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the state that is most familiar with the governing law, and (8) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000); Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). Public factors include court congestion, local interest in having localized controversies decided at home, the interest in avoiding unnecessary conflicts of laws, and the interest in trying the case in a forum familiar with the applicable law. Id. at 843. The Court finds that a transfer of this case to the Central District of California, where the case could have been originally filed, is appropriate. Due the overlap in legal issues between this case and the Bernard and King cases and the overlap in the putative classes, it is in the interests of judicial economy as well as the convenience of the parties and witnesses that all three cases be heard in the same forum. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Defendants' Motion to Transfer is GRANTED;
2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED without prejudice to renewal in transferee court.
3.This action shall be TRANSFERRED forthwith to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division.
Hon. Saundra B. Armstrong UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I am employed in Los Angeles County, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business address is 350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071-1503. On September 17, 2010, the following documents were served electronically via the CM/ECF system:
* [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO TRANSFER
The parties who received electronic notice of the filing of the foregoing documents included:
* Elizabeth Scott Letcher ...