JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR CHANGE OF VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1404
Plaintiff, Nick Martin ("Plaintiff"), and Defendant, Warehouse Demo Services, Inc. ("WDS") (collectively the "Parties"), by and through their respective attorneys, respectfully submit this Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order for Change of Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404, relating to the above-referenced matter (the "Martin action").
1. On August 17, 2010, the Parties attended a mediation session before Mark S. Rudy, Esq., a well-respected mediator with significant experience in wage and hour class actions. With the assistance of Mr. Rudy, the parties reached a tentative settlement.
2. On or about August 19, 2010, Mr. Rudy submitted to the Parties a Mediator's Proposal which sought to resolve the Martin case as well as the related action entitled Domnitz, et al. v. Warehouse Demo Services, Inc., Northern District of California, Case No. CV-09-05305 (the "Domnitz action"), collectively.
3. On or about August 30, 2010, Mr. Rudy informed all parties that each party had independently accepted and agreed to the terms of the Mediator's Proposal.
4. Based on the fact that the parties have agreed to the material terms necessary to settle both the Martin and Domnitz actions, and the fact that the Martin and Domnitz actions are currently pending in different Courts, the Parties stipulate, agree and respectfully request that the Court enter an order providing that this Court transfer the venue of the Martin action, which has been settled in conjunction with the Domnitz action, to Judge Chesney, in the Northern District of California for consolidation with the Domnitz action, preliminary approval of the settlement and all subsequent proceedings.
5. Change of venue is proper here pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) to the Northern District, where the first action (Domnitz) was filed and where the more comprehensive putative class is featured, for reasons of judicial economy and the convenience of the Court and the parties.
6. Furthermore, change of venue is proper in the interest of justice, in that it would be unnecessarily duplicative to seek review and approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement in two separate courts, and it would unduly delay resolution of the cases. Similarly, the Courts would unnecessarily expend judicial resources by addressing the same legal and factual issues, which potentially could lead to inconsistent rulings.
7. This Court has the authority to enter an order for a change of venue, because the Court may transfer any civil action to any other district where it might have been brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). The Martin action could have been brought in the Northern District of California, as WDS conducts business operations within that District.
SO STIPULATED BY PLAINTIFF.
SO STIPULATED BY DEFENDANT.
IT IS SO ORDERED that this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the ...