Jones v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-01535
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Jones v. Experian, Judge Woods scheduled a telephone conference about Jones’s objection to transferring the case.
Wesley Jones and Experian Information Solutions, Inc., along with the other defendants identified in the caption, were affected because the court scheduled a conference concerning Jones’s objection to the transfer order.
What happened
In Jones v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Magistrate Judge Cave had granted Experian’s request to move the case to the federal court in the Northern District of Georgia. Wesley Jones objected to that decision the same day.
The order did not decide Jones’s objection. Instead, it scheduled a telephone conference for May 28, 2025, at 4:00 p.m., and directed the parties to follow the court’s practice rules, including Rule 2(C).
Judge Gregory H. Woods issued the order on May 23, 2025. The opinion does not state what the court ultimately decided about transferring the case.
The detailed version
- Jones v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-01535
- Gregory Woods
- May 23, 2025
Background
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. moved to transfer the action from the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On May 22, 2025, Magistrate Judge Cave granted that motion. The opinion states that motions to transfer venue are non-dispositive, meaning they do not finally resolve the parties’ claims, and may therefore be decided by a magistrate judge’s order.
Wesley Jones filed an objection to Magistrate Judge Cave’s order later on May 22, 2025.
What the Court Did
Judge Gregory H. Woods scheduled a telephone conference about Jones’s objection for May 28, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. The parties were directed to consult the court’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, including Rule 2(C), which contains the telephone dial-in information and other instructions.
This order did not rule on Jones’s objection or otherwise decide whether the action should be transferred. The opinion also does not state the outcome of the scheduled conference.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.