Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 6, 2025

Quach v. Walgreen Co.

Judge
Jeffrey White
Docket
4:24-cv-07052
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Quach v. Walgreen Co., Judge White vacated the conference and ordered briefing on possible transfer to California’s Eastern District.

Who this affects

Daciana Quach and Walgreen Co.; the order requires both parties to address a possible transfer of the case to the Eastern District of California.

What happened

Quach v. Walgreen Co. concerns a case in which Walgreen said Daciana Quach worked at one of its stores in Bakersfield, California. The court noted that Quach filed her complaint in San Mateo Superior Court but did not state where she lives.

The court did not decide whether to transfer the case. Instead, it ordered both parties to explain why the case should not be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

Judge Jeffrey White vacated the January 10, 2025 case management conference and postponed setting deadlines. The parties must file simultaneous briefs by January 17, 2025, and may respond by January 24, 2025.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Quach v. Walgreen Co. · No. 4:24-cv-07052
Judge
Jeffrey White
Date
Jan. 6, 2025

Background

The court received and considered the parties’ joint case management conference statement. Walgreen reported that Quach worked at one of its stores in Bakersfield, California. The order states that Quach filed her complaint in San Mateo Superior Court, but her complaint does not allege where she resides.

Court’s Order

The court vacated the case management conference scheduled for January 10, 2025, and reserved setting any deadlines. It also issued an order to show cause under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), requiring the parties to explain why the case should not be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The court did not order a transfer at this stage. It stated that the parties could present their views before the court decides the transfer issue.

Next Steps

The parties must file simultaneous briefs responding to the order to show cause by January 17, 2025. They may file responses to those briefs by January 24, 2025. The court may request more information or hold a hearing and would issue a separate order if it does so.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.