United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER RE: DEFENDANT GREAT PACIFIC PACKAGING, INC.'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE 
RONALD S.W. LEW, District Judge.
Currently before the Court is Defendant Great Pacific Packaging, Inc.'s ("Great Pacific") Motion to Transfer Venue filed June 20, 2014 . Plaintiff Caltex Plastics, Inc. ("Plaintiff") filed its Opposition on July 8, 2014  and Defendant Great Pacific filed its Reply on July 15, 2014 . This matter was taken under submission on July 24, 2014 . Having reviewed all papers and arguments submitted pertaining to this Motion, the Court NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS:
The Court hereby DENIES Defendant Great Pacific's Motion.
Plaintiff is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Vernon, California. Compl. ¶ 3. Defendant Great Pacific is a corporation that manufactures products in California with headquarters in San Jose, California. Id. at ¶ 4. Defendant Amazing Packaging is also a California corporation with headquarters in San Jose, California. Id. at ¶ 5. Defendant Amazing Packaging Supplies, Inc. ("Amazing Packaging") distributes, sells, ships, and advertises product packaging materials. Id.
Plaintiff manufactures industrial and commercial packaging, including military packaging material for electronic devices. Id. at ¶ 12. Plaintiff's products have been granted permission by the Department of Defense ("DOD") to be advertised as meeting the MIL-PRF-81705 Type III ("81705 Spec") military specifications for heat-sealable, electrostatic discharge protective, flexible barrier materials. Id. at ¶¶ 13-15. At the commencement of the Action, Plaintiff was the only manufacturer of static shielding bags that met the special 81705 Spec designation. Id. at ¶ 17.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have misrepresented their products to meet the 81705 Spec in their advertisements when their products have not been certified as such. Id. at ¶¶ 18-20. Although Plaintiff has demanded that Defendants stop selling their falsely-advertised line of products, Defendants have continued with their sales. Id. at ¶ 21. As a result of the sales, Plaintiff alleges that customers have been deceived and that Plaintiff has been economically injured. Id. at ¶¶ 22-23.
Plaintiff brings the instant Action, asserting claims for unfair competition under California law and false advertising under California and federal law against Defendants. Id. at ¶¶ 1-2, 24-45.
Plaintiff filed its Complaint against Defendants on April 11, 2014 . Defendants filed an Answer on June 20, 2014 .
II. LEGAL STANDARD
B. Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), "[f]or the convenience of the 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).
Before a court may transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404, it must find that: (i) the action is one that might have been brought in the transferee court and (ii) the convenience of the parties and the interest of justice favor the transfer. Colt Studio, Inc. v. Badpuppy Enter. , 75 F.Supp.2d 1104, 1112 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (citing Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co. , 758 F.2d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 1985)). Transfer under § 1404(a) is discretionary. A.J. Indus. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. Of Cal. , 503 F.2d 384, 389 (9th Cir. 1974). The purpose of § 1404(a) is to "prevent the waste of time, energy and money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense." Van Dusen v. Barrack , 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (quoting Cont'l Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585 , 364 U.S. 19, 26-27 (1960)).
An action is one that might have been brought in the transferee court when (i) the transferee court would have had subject matter jurisdiction at the time the action was filed; (ii) defendants would have been subject to personal jurisdiction; and (iii) venue would have been proper. E. & J. Gallo Winery v. F. & P. S.p.A. , 899 ...