Viacom International Inc et al v. Axis Insurance Company

Filing 15

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause Re: Improper Venue by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause in writing no later than September 11, 2014 why this case should not be transferred to the Northern District of Illin ois. If Plaintiffs fail to respond to this Order by September 11, 2014, the Court will transfer this case to the Northern District of Illinois. (PLEASE REVIEW DOCUMENT FOR FULL AND COMPLETE DETAILS) ( Response to Order to Show Cause due by 9/11/2014.) (lw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-5721 PSG (PLAx)

Title

Viacom Int’l Inc., et al. v. AXIS Ins. Co.

Present:

Date

August 21, 2014

The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge

Wendy K. Hernandez
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s):

n/a
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Improper Venue
Plaintiffs Viacom International Inc. (“Viacom”) and Ish Entertainment, LLC (“Ish
Entertainment”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought this action against Defendant AXIS
Insurance Company (“Defendant”), asserting the following claims: (1) declaratory relief; (2)
breach of contract; and (3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
In 2008, Defendant issued a Film and Entertainment Liability Policy in connection with
the production, distribution, and broadcast of a television program entitled T.I.’s Road to
Redemption (“The Program”). See Compl. ¶ 7. Plaintiffs were insureds under that policy. See
id. In 2011, the Plaintiffs were sued in Georgia with respect to the Program. See id. ¶ 9.
Plaintiffs notified Defendant of the litigation and Defendant acknowledged that it was covered
under the policy. See id. ¶ 10. As the Georgia litigation proceeded, a dispute arose between
Plaintiffs and Defendant regarding the amount of coverage that was available under the policy.
See id. ¶ 11. Now that the Georgia litigation has settled, see id. ¶ 17, Plaintiffs are seeking
damages from Defendant.
Based on the allegations set forth in the Complaint, it is unclear whether the Central
District of California is the proper venue for this dispute. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil
action may be brought in:
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are
residents of the State in which the district is located;
CV-14-5721 PSG (PLAx)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-5721 PSG (PLAx)

Title

Date

August 21, 2014

Viacom Int’l Inc., et al. v. AXIS Ins. Co.
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions
giving rise to the claim occurred; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought . . . any
judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal
jurisdiction with respect to such an action.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). In a breach of contract action, the Ninth Circuit has held that venue should
be determined by considering where the contract was intended to be performed rather than where
it was repudiated. See Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 842 (9th
Cir. 1986) (“We favor this rule because the place of performance is determined at the inception
of the contract and therefore parties can anticipate where they may be sued. Furthermore, the
place of performance is likely to have a close nexus to the underlying events.”). Based on the
allegations set forth in the complaint, it is unclear where the contract was intended to be
performed: in Illinois, at Defendant’s principal place of business; in New York, at Viacom’s
principal place of business and Ish Entertainment’s now-principal place of business; or in
California, at Ish Entertainment’s principal place of business as of 2008. See Compl. ¶¶ 4-6. As
a result, it appears that venue may not be proper in this District, and that it may be appropriate
for this Court to dismiss this case or transfer it to a district where it could have been brought,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Additionally, it appears to the Court that even if venue is proper here, this case may be
more conveniently litigated in Illinois or New York. None of the parties are located in
California, and there is no indication in the Complaint that any witnesses or evidence are in
California. Thus, the Court is inclined to transfer this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to
the Northern District of Illinois, where venue would be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). See
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, [and] in the interest of
justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it
might have been brought . . . .”).
Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause in writing no later than September 11, 2014 why this
case should not be transferred to the Northern District of Illinois. If Plaintiffs fail to respond to
this Order by September 11, 2014, the Court will transfer this case to the Northern District of
Illinois.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-14-5721 PSG (PLAx)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2