1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Asfa Kassam, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02051-CDS-BNW

5 Plaintiffs Order Granting Unopposed Motion to Transfer or Change Venue 6 v.

7 Flux Power Holdings, Inc., et al., [ECF No. 11] 8 Defendants

9 10 On December 23, 2024, defendants Flux Power Holdings, Inc. and Ronald F. Dutt filed 11 an unopposed1 motion to transfer this action to the Southern District of California. Mot., ECF 12 No. 11. Because the motion is unopposed, and a review of the motion on its merits reveals that 13 transfer to the Southern District of California appropriate, the court grants the motion.2 14 I. Discussion 15 Under

, a civil action may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which 16 any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; 17 (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the 18 claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or 19 (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this 20 section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal 21 jurisdiction with respect to such action.

(b). “For the convenience of parties and 22 witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other 23 district . . . where it might have been brought[.]”

(a). 24 1 The court notes that it appears that defendant Charles A. Scheiwe has not yet been served. Nonetheless, 25 the court finds resolving this unopposed motion appropriate. 2 Because I grant the motion to transfer, I do not address the pending motions for appointment of lead 26 plaintiff and approval of counsel. ECF Nos. 12, 13, and 14. 1 The decision whether to transfer a case is within the discretion of the district court and 2 is made under “an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.” Jones 3 v. GNC Franchising, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2000) (internal citation omitted); see also 28

(a). In making this evaluation, courts may consider several factors, including: 5 “(1) the location where [any] relevant agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) the state that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff’s choice 6 of forum, (4) the respective parties’ contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the chosen forum, (6) the differences in 7 the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) the ease of access 8 to sources of proof.” 9

F.3d at 498–99. 11 The motion addresses these factors, stating that the factors weigh in favor of transfer 12 because: (1) the action could have initially been filed in the Southern District of California; (2) 13 Flux’s principal place of business and headquarters are in Vista, California; (3) defendants Dutt 14 and Scheiwe reside in Southern California; (4) the parties and the witnesses have contacts with 15 the forum; (5) Southern California would seemingly be convenient for the parties and witnesses; 16 (6) contacts with Nevada are limited3; and (7) much of the discovery that would be disclosed in 17 this litigation is located in California. See ECF No. 11 at 3–7. Upon review of the motion, I agree 18 that these factors weigh in favor of transfer. Further, I agree with defendants that the other 19 factors a court should consider when resolving a motion to transfer—the differences in the costs 20 of litigation in the two forums and the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance 21 of unwilling non-party witnesses—are neutral.

. Accordingly, the majority of factors 22 weigh in favor of transferring this action, so defendant’s motion [ECF No. 11] is granted. 23 24

25 3 The plaintiff is not a Nevada resident. Further, unlike other actions, because this is a shareholder class action, the plaintiff’s forum of choice is given minimal consideration. See Lou v. Belzberg,

, 739 26 (9th Cir. 1987) cert. denied,

(1988) (when an individual represents a class, the named plaintiff’s choice of forum is given less weight). 1 IL. Conclusion 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants Flux Power Holdings, Inc. and Ronald F. 3]| Dutt’s motion to transfer or change venue [ECF No. I] is GRANTED. 4 The Clerk of Court is kindly instructed to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California for all further proceedings and, after transfer, to 6 close this case. 7 Dated: January 14, 2025 /, / □□□ cifghrtag — ed States District Judge 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26