is a resident of the Western District, Cable-La’s third-party complaint might have been brought in the Western District. Moreover, since Whiting’s and Cable-La’s performance occurred in both the Western and Middle Districts, none of the traditional convenience factors to be considered under Stewart favor suit in the Middle District more strongly than they do suit in the Western District. In the face of a prior duplicative action in the Western District and in the absence of any strong reasons to retain the third-party complaint in the Middle District, the court finds it to be in the interests of justice to transfer the third-party complaint to the Western District under Section 1404(a). See Continental Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19, 26, 80 S.Ct. 1470, 4 L.Ed.2d 1540 (1960) (<HOLDING>). It can then be consolidated with the pending
holding that the right of all putative members of a proposed class in an action filed pursuant to kansass class action rule of civil procedure to file a separate action is preserved pending the determination of whether the initial case shall be maintained as a class action holding district court dismissal of plaintiffs present action did not constitute prior action  and thus did not count as third strike recognizing cause of action holding that while the fourteenth amendment is directed against state action and not private action the state action requirement is met in a civil action where state law is applied whether by statute or common law holding purpose of section 1404a served by transferring action to district where prior duplicative action pending