IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
FREE STREAM MEDIA CORP. d/b/a § SAMBA TV, §
§
Plaintiff, § § vs. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-1725
§ ALPHONSO INC., §
§
Defendant. §
§
FREE STREAM MEDIA CORP. d/b/a § SAMBA TV, §
§
Plaintiff, § § vs. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-704
§ ALPHONSO INC., §
§
Defendant. §
§
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Alphonso Inc.’s (“Alphonso”) Motion to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Docket No. 53 in Case No. 2:16-cv-1725). The Court held a hearing on Alphonso’s motion on March 13, 2017.1 After careful consideration of the parties’ arguments and written submissions, the Court GRANTS the motion.
Upon consideration of each of the applicable public and private factors related to a transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the Court finds that, under the specific circumstances of this case,
2.
a majority of these factors weigh in favor of transfer. The parties’ ties to the Northern District of California outweigh the ties that the parties have to this district. Consequently, the Northern District of California is a clearly more convenient venue than this District. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that these cases be transferred to the Northern District of California. Given the approaching deadlines under this Court’s current docket control order, all deadlines are STAYED until the case is received and reassigned by the clerk of the Northern District of California and until further order of that Court.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 29th day of March, 2017.
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Footnotes
- ↩ 1 Shortly after Alphonso’s motion was filed, Plaintiff filed a separate lawsuit against Alphonso (Case No. 2:16-cv-704). The parties then jointly moved to consolidate the cases, and the Court granted that motion. See Docket No. 62 in Case No. 2:16-cv-1725. Though Alphonso has not moved to transfer Case No. 2:16-cv-704, the parties agreed at the March 13, 2017 hearing that the Court’s ruling on the instant motion should apply to that case as well.