Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 5, 2021

Cochran v. Accellion, Inc.

Judge
Edward Davila
Docket
5:21-cv-01887
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Cochran v. Accellion, Judge Davila denied James Martin’s motions to transfer his Indiana case and separate from the class.

Who this affects

James Martin’s transfer and class-separation requests were denied; the order also explains how he may later pursue the right to opt out of the putative class.

What happened

In Cochran v. Accellion, James Martin asked the Northern District of California to transfer a case he filed in the Southern District of Indiana.

The court denied the transfer request because federal law required him to file it in the court where the case was originally filed, not in the proposed receiving court.

The court also denied Martin’s request to separate his case, treating it as a request to leave the class. Judge Davila said that was not the proper way to opt out and explained that settlement notice would provide instructions.

The detailed version

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

Case
Cochran v. Accellion, Inc. · No. 5:21-cv-01887
Judge
Edward Davila
Date
Nov. 5, 2021

Background

James Martin filed a motion asking the Northern District of California to transfer a case he had filed in the Southern District of Indiana. He also filed a motion to separate his case. The court interpreted the second motion as a request to opt out of the putative class.

Transfer motion

The court denied Martin’s motion to transfer. It explained that 28 U.S.C. § 1404(b) requires a transfer motion to be filed in the court where the plaintiff’s action was filed—the proposed transferor court. Because Martin filed the motion in the proposed transferee court, the Northern District of California, the court concluded that he filed it in the wrong court.

Request to separate from the class

The court denied Martin’s request to separate his case because it was not the proper mechanism for opting out of the class. The court stated that Martin would receive settlement notice from class counsel and that the notice would explain how to pursue his right to opt out. It referred Martin to putative class counsel Tina Wolfson.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to transfer and denied the motion to separate the case. The order was signed by United States District Judge Edward J. Davila.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.