Landin v. Comcast Corp.
United States District Court, E.D. California
July 20, 2016
LUPE LANDIN, JR. and EDUARDO MURILLO, Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, and COMCAST OF CONTRA COSTA, INC., Defendants. CORY BARRETT HALL, Plaintiff,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST OF CONTRA COSTA, INC., and COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants. FRANCISCO FLORES et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, and COMCAST OF CONTRA COSTA, INC., Defendants. JOSEPH JOSHUA DAVIS et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, and COMCAST OF CONTRA COSTA, INC., Defendants. JAMES K. GRIMES and CARLOS RAMOS, Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, and COMCAST OF CONTRA COSTA, INC., Defendants. STEPHEN MCBRIDE et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, and COMCAST OF CONTRA COSTA, INC., Defendants. LAWRENCE ELKINS et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, and COMCAST OF CONTRA COSTA, INC., Defendants. HERNAN PAEZ et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, and COMCAST OF CONTRA COSTA, INC., Defendants. KRIS COOK et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, and COMCAST OF CONTRA COSTA, INC., Defendants. KEVIN HUFFMAN et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, and COMCAST OF CONTRA COSTA, INC., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION RE TRANSFER OF VENUE TO
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA
On July
13, 2016, the parties to the above-captioned related cases
filed a stipulation to transfer the same cases to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The parties state that after meeting and
conferring, they agreed to seek a voluntary transfer of the
related cases for reasons of convenience of the parties and
for judicial economy, as eight related cases are currently
pending before the Honorable Jeffrey White. The parties
further state that judicial economy and the convenience of
the parties will be served: (a) by allowing a single court to
decide the various legal issues that are identical or
substantially similar in all cases; (b) that court should be
located in the Northern District because the cases presiding
within the Northern District are further advanced through the
judicial process than those currently pending in the Eastern
District; (c) because the Northern District is equally
convenient for all parties and witnesses from all cases, and
(d) all parties consent to the transfer. Moreover, the
parties represent that they intend to relate and seek further
consolidation of the above-captioned cases before the
Honorable Jeffrey White once transferred and that at the last
case management conference before Judge White, they informed
him of their intentions.[1]
Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “a district court may
transfer any civil action to any other district or division
where it might have been brought or to any district or
division to which all parties have consented.”
According to the stipulation, the parties consent to such a
transfer. Finding good cause and in the interests of justice,
the court grants the parties’ stipulation.
Accordingly,
1. The parties’ stipulation to transfer this action to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California is granted;
2. The
Clerk of the Court is directed to transfer this action to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California as soon as reasonably possible; and
3. All
previously scheduled dates before this court are hereby
vacated.
IT IS
SO ORDERED.
---------
Notes:
[1] The undersigned has confirmed with
Judge White that he is willing to accept the transfer of
...