Joe Charters et al v. Johnson Lambert LLP

Filing 14

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Percy Anderson. The Court orders the parties to show cause, in writing not to exceed 15 pages, why this action should not be transferred to another forum for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and in the in terests of justice. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 124(a), 1404(a). All factual matters relied upon in the parties'submissions must be supported by appropriate declarations and admissible evidence. Plaintiffs shall file their response no later tha n October 11, 2013. Defendant's response, if any, shall be filed no later than October 15, 2013. Failure to timely respond to this order to show cause may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of this action without prejudice. REFER TO DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS OF THE COURT'S ORDER. (pso)

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

ED CV 13-1161 PA (DTBx)

Title

Joe Charters, et al. v. Johnson Lambert, LLP

Present: The Honorable

Date

September 26, 2013

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Paul Songco

N/A

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS—ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Before the Court is a Complaint filed by plaintiffs Joe Charters (“Charters”) and David Adamic
(“Adamic”), individually and as representatives of a class of persons similarly situated, (“Plaintiffs”) on
June 28, 2013. The Complaint alleges claims for negligence, negligent non-disclosure, aiding and
abetting, aiding and abetting conversion, and unjust enrichment. The Complaint alleges that plaintiff
Charters is a citizen of Florida and that plaintiff Adamic is an individual residing in California. The
Complaint further alleges that venue is proper in the Central District of California because plaintiff
Adamic received much of the information related to this claim in this district and made the contributions
that are the subject of this claim in this district. Other than those facts, the Complaint does not allege
facts to show that the claims arose in this judicial district. Plaintiffs allege that defendant Johnson
Lambert, LLP created false audit reports and that its principal office is located in Arlington Heights,
Illinois.
The Court orders the parties to show cause, in writing not to exceed 15 pages, why this action
should not be transferred to another forum for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and in the
interests of justice. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 124(a), 1404(a). All factual matters relied upon in the parties’
submissions must be supported by appropriate declarations and admissible evidence. To assist the Court
in determining whether transfer is appropriate and in the interest of justice, the parties are directed to
address the following, in addition to sharing their beliefs as to which forum is more convenient for the
parties and witnesses:
1.

Whether this action could have been brought in Illinois;

2.

Whether venue is appropriate in a venue other than the Central District of California
(“Central District”);

3.

What contacts, if any, each of the parties has to the Central District and any other
appropriate venue;

4.

What connection Plaintiffs’ causes of action have to the Central District, Illinois, and any
other appropriate venue;

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

ED CV 13-1161 PA (DTBx)

Title

Date

September 26, 2013

Joe Charters, et al. v. Johnson Lambert, LLP
5.

Which witnesses are expected to be called and where they reside;

6.

The availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party
witnesses in the Central District as compared to any other appropriate venue;

7.

The ease of access to sources of proof in each of the forums; and

8.

The expected difference in the cost of litigation in the Central District as compared to any
other appropriate venue; and

Plaintiffs shall file their response no later than October 11, 2013. Defendant’s response, if any,
shall be filed no later than October 15, 2013. Failure to timely respond to this order to show cause may
result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of this action without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2