University of Southern California v. AIDS Healthcare Foundation Medical Plan
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to transfer venue from the Southern District of California to the Central District of California. The court granted the motion, transferring the case to the Central District of California while deferring the specific division assignment to the transferee court.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint motion to transfer venue granted“Therefore, the Court GRANTS the joint motion to transfer venue and TRANSFERS VENUE to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.” | agree with court The court accepted the parties' joint stipulation that venue is proper in the Central District of California. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a court may transfer a civil action for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice. When parties jointly move for transfer, courts generally grant the motion unless there are compelling reasons to deny it. The order recites the parties' joint submission as the basis for the finding of proper venue, which is sufficient for a procedural transfer order. |
Deferral of division assignment to transferee court“The Court defers the assignment of division to the transferee court because the transferee court is best positioned to weigh judicial economy and administrative considerations.” | agree with court The court declined to assign the case to a specific division within the Central District (Western Division) as requested by the parties. Instead, it deferred this administrative decision to the receiving court, citing the complexity of the assignment system. This is a reasonable exercise of judicial discretion regarding administrative logistics. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural disposition of a joint motion to transfer. It correctly identifies the basis for the transfer (parties' joint submission) and cites a relevant local authority for the deferral of division assignment. The reasoning is sufficient for the type of order issued.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN Case No. 20-cv-1687-BAS-BGS CALIFORNIA, on Behalf of its Keck 12 Hospital of USC, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE Plaintiff, (ECF No. 12) 14 v. 15 AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION, 16 et al. 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to transfer venue. (ECF No. 21 12.) Based on the parties’ joint submission, the Court finds that the venue is proper in the 22 United States District Court for the Central District of California. Therefore, the Court 23 GRANTS the joint motion to transfer venue and TRANSFERS VENUE to the United 24 States District Court for the Central District of California. All pending motions shall be 25 resolved by the transferee Court. 26 The parties specifically request the Court to transfer the case to the Western Division 27 of the Central District of California. The Court defers the assignment of division to the 28 transferee court because the transferee court is best positioned to weigh judicial economy 1 |}and administrative considerations. See J.G. v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., No. 2 || LACV191268JGBEX, 2020 WL 2121429, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2020) (“Cases in the 3 ||Central District are assigned to each division based on a delicately balanced assignment 4 system.”). 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 A , 8 || DATED: October 30, 2020 Ypilag (Ayphan 6 9 United States District Judge 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28