Core Litigation Trust v. Apollo Global Management, LLC et al

Filing 65

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff Motion to Remand 38 ; and ORDER GRANTING Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer Venue 39 by Judge John F. Walter: Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court found these matters appropriate for submission on the papers without oral argument. The matters were, therefore, removed from the Court's 3/27/2017 hearing calendar and the parties were given advance notice. After cons idering the moving, opposing, and reply papers, and the arguments therein, the Court rules as follows: For the reasons stated in the Endemol Defendants moving and reply papers, the Endemol Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer Venue is GRANTED, a nd this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED without prejudice to refiling once the case is transferred. Case transferred electronically. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JS-6 CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL Case No. CV 17-927-JFW(AGRx) Title: Core Litigation Trust -v- Apollo Global Management, LLC, et al. Date: April 5, 2017 PRESENT: HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Shannon Reilly Courtroom Deputy None Present Court Reporter ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: None PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: None ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND [filed 2/21/17; Docket No. 38]; and ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE [filed 2/21/17; Docket No. 39] On February 21, 2017, Plaintiff Core Litigation Trust, by and through its duly appointed trustee, Peter Kravitz (“Plaintiff”), filed a Motion to Remand. On March 6, 2017, Defendants Apollo Global Management, LLC; Apollo Global Securities, LLC; Apollo Management Holdings GP, LLC; Apollo Management Holdings, L.P.; Apollo Management GP, LLC; Apollo Management, L.P.; Apollo CORE Holdings GP, LLC; Apollo CORE Holdings, L.P.; Apollo Capital Management VII, LLC; Apollo Advisors VII, L.P.; Apollo Investment Fund VII, L.P.; Apollo Overseas Partners VII (Delaware), L.P.; Apollo Overseas Partners (Delaware 892) VII, L.P.; Apollo Investment Fund (PB) VII, L.P.; AP NMT Coöperatief U.A.; and Apollo Overseas Partners VII, L.P. filed their Opposition. On March 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Reply. On February 21, 2017, Defendants Endemol USA Holding, Inc.; AP NMT JV Newco B.V.; MediArena Holding, B.V.; and Endemol Shine North America (a fictitious entity) (collectively, the “Endemol Defendants”) filed a Joint Motion to Transfer Venue. On March 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed its Opposition. On March 13, 2017, the Endemol Defendants filed a Reply. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court found these matters appropriate for submission on the papers without oral argument. The matters were, therefore, removed from the Court’s March 27, 2017 hearing calendar and the parties were given advance notice. After considering the moving, opposing, and reply papers, and the arguments therein, the Court rules as follows: For the reasons stated in the Endemol Defendants’ moving and reply papers, the Endemol Defendants’ Joint Motion to Transfer Venue is GRANTED, and this action is TRANSFERRED to Page 1 of 2 Initials of Deputy Clerk sr the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is DENIED without prejudice to refiling once the case is transferred. See, e.g., Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi v. Stanley, 605 F. Supp. 2d 1073, 1074 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (“Defendants submitted a meritorious motion to transfer to the Southern District of New York. This Court need not address the propriety of removal before riling on the motion to transfer”). IT IS SO ORDERED. Page 2 of 2 Initials of Deputy Clerk sr

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?