Richardson v. Tesla, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · 3:23-cv-02151 · 2024-01-08 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Myron James Lorenz (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T21:42Z · confidence low

Defendants moved to transfer venue to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1401(a) due to a parallel action, and the plaintiff did not file an opposition. The court granted the motion as unopposed and ordered the case transferred.

What the court decided	The model
Motion to transfer venue granted “Defendant’s motion is granted as unopposed.”	unsure · procedure The court granted the motion solely on the basis that it was unopposed, citing local rules and Ghazali v. Moran. It did not analyze the statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1401(a) (such as whether the parallel action was filed first or whether the transfer is appropriate). While granting unopposed motions is common, the court failed to verify if the statutory prerequisites for a § 1401(a) transfer were met, which is a gap in the reasoning.

What the court decided

The model

Motion to transfer venue granted

“Defendant’s motion is granted as unopposed.”

unsure · procedure
The court granted the motion solely on the basis that it was unopposed, citing local rules and Ghazali v. Moran. It did not analyze the statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1401(a) (such as whether the parallel action was filed first or whether the transfer is appropriate). While granting unopposed motions is common, the court failed to verify if the statutory prerequisites for a § 1401(a) transfer were met, which is a gap in the reasoning.

The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound in granting an unopposed motion but substantively thin. It relies on Ghazali v. Moran to justify granting the motion without analysis. However, it does not explicitly confirm that the statutory conditions of 28 U.S.C. § 1401(a) (e.g., that the parallel action was filed first) are satisfied, relying instead on the lack of opposition. This is a common but potentially risky shortcut if the statutory prerequisites are not met.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOEL RICHARDSON, Case No.: 23cv2151-L-JLB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. TRANSFER VENUE 14 TESLA, INC. dba TESLA MOTORS, [ECF No. 6] INC. et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court in this putative consumer class action is Defendants’ 18 motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1401(a) to the Northern District of 19 California, where a parallel putative consumer class action has been pending since 20 September 14, 2022. Matsuko v. Tesla, Inc., U.S. Dist. Ct. N. Dist. Cal. case no. 21 3:22cv05240-RFL. (See ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff, represented by counsel, has not filed an 22 opposition. The time to oppose has elapsed. See Civ. Local R. 7.1(e)(2). Because it is 23 unclear whether Plaintiff’s counsel is a registered user of the Court’s CM/ECF system, 24 Defendant served its motion and subsequent notice of non-opposition by mailing the 25 documents to Plaintiff’s counsel by first class U.S. mail on December 21, 2023. (ECF 26 No. 8.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. Based on the foregoing, 27 Defendant’s motion is granted as unopposed. See Civ. Loc. Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c); Ghazali v. 28 Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995). 1 Accordingly, it is ordered as follows: 2 1. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern 3 || District of California. 4 2. Because it is unclear whether Plaintiff’s counsel is a registered user on the 5 Court’s CM/ECE system, the Clerk is ordered to serve this Order by first class U.S. Mail. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 ||Dated: January 8, 2024 1 fee fp 10 H . James Lorenz, United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28