Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Vigil v. General Nutrition Corporation

United States District Court, N.D. California

January 13, 2015

RYAN VIGIL, Plaintiff,
v.
GENERAL NUTRITION CORPORATION, Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER

JEFFREY S. WHITE, District Judge.

Now before the Court for consideration is Defendant General Nutrition Corporation's ("GNC") Motion to Transfer Case. The Court has considered the parties' papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, and it finds the motion suitable for disposition without oral argument. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). The Court therefore VACATES the hearing scheduled for January 23, 2015. For the following reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant's Motion.

BACKGROUND

GNC is a retailer of health and wellness products. GNC is organized, and has its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Plaintiff is an individual who resides in San Diego County, California. Plaintiff brings this putative class action, alleging that he purchased a GNC product - Staminol - in reliance on GNC's advertising that Staminol would enhance his sexual experience and enjoyment. Plaintiff was exposed to GNC's advertising for Staminol, and purchased the product in La Jolla, California.

GNC now moves to transfer venue to the Southern District of California. On January 7, 2015, Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition to GNC's Motion.

ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may transfer a civil action to any district where the case could have been filed originally, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice. The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that the action should be transferred. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979).

District courts use a two-step analysis to determine whether transfer is proper. Step one considers the threshold question of whether the action might have been brought in the district to which transfer is sought. Id. If venue is proper in the transferee district, the district court has discretion "to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness." Steward Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988). The court considers relevant factors, such as the plaintiff's choice of forum, the local interest in the issue, the relative ease of access to evidence, the availability of compulsory process for unwilling witnesses and the cost involved in securing willing witnesses, the familiarity of each forum with applicable law, and the relative court congestion in each forum. Decker Coal. Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co, 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-09 (1947)).

B. Transfer of Venue is Appropriate.

1. Venue is Proper in the Southern District of California.

Venue is proper in any judicial district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Plaintiff resides within the Southern District of California, and he alleges that he was exposed to GNC's advertising, and purchased GNC's product within the Southern District. Additionally, Plaintiff does not dispute that venue is proper in the Southern District. Accordingly, the Court finds that GNC has met its burden under the first prong.

2. Convenience Factors.

a. Plaintiff's Choice ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.