Adler et al v. Volume Services, Inc. et al

1
25-cv-01939-AJB-BJW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASEY ADLER and CODY
URQUHART, individuals, on behalf of
themselves, and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
VOLUME SERVICES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 25-cv-01939-AJB-BJW
ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES’
JOINT MOTION TO TRANSFER
VENUE AND TRANSFERRING THE
ACTION TO THE CENTRAL
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
(Doc. No. 25)
Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion seeking to vacate all dates and deadlines
and transfer this action to the Central District of California, where Defendants contend a
related action, Garcia v. Volume Services, Inc., et al. (“Garcia”), No. 2:25-cv-5964-JAK-
AS (C.D. Cal.), is pending. (Doc. No. 25.) Based on the parties’ supplemental briefing
(Doc. No. 27), the Court finds transfer of the instant action proper under either 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a) or the first-to-file doctrine.
///
Case 3:25-cv-01939-AJB-BJW Document 28 Filed 01/29/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 2

2
25-cv-01939-AJB-BJW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Accordingly, 	the 	Court 	GRANTS 	the 	parties’ 	joint 	motion 	to 	transfer 	and
TRANSFERS the instant action to the Central District of California to be consolidated
with the Garcia action.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 29, 2026
1 	The Court declines to vacate the parties’ schedule based on a lack of good cause. (See Doc. Nos.
25; 27.) As fact discovery is well underway and set to close April 24, 2026, which is the next proximate
date (see Doc No. 17), any scheduling changes are more properly left for the transferee court.
Case 3:25-cv-01939-AJB-BJW Document 28 Filed 01/29/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 2