In Re: Gary William Gorski

Filing 15

ORDER signed by District Judge George H. Wu on 02/08/17 ORDERING that the 8 Motion to Change Venue is DENIED and the 02/13/17 hearing is VACATED. (Benson, A)

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

2:16-cv-02528-GHW

Title

In re Gorski (Cnty. of Sacramento v. Gorski, et al.)

Present: The Honorable

Date

February 8, 2017

GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Javier Gonzalez

None Present

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None Present

None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TRANSFER

Counterclaimant/Cross-claimants Daniel Karalash and Robert Hunter move for a transfer of
venue in this bankruptcy appeal to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
See Docket No. 8. The United States of America, on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service, and
plaintiff County of Sacramento have filed statements of non-opposition. See Docket Nos. 11, 12.
The Court denies the motion. This action was randomly selected for reassignment to the
undersigned judge via an Order of Reassignment issued by Chief U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence
O'Neill as part of an effort to alleviate the caseload burdens of the Eastern District of California. See
Docket No. 6. That Order of Reassignment made reference to a General Designation of District Judge
for Service in Another District within the Ninth Circuit issued by the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals, the Hon. Sidney R. Thomas, on November 2, 2016. This Court will not make use of
the Section 1404(a) factors to foist upon the Northern District of California what this Court agreed to
undertake as part of an administrative shifting of caseload burdens, as reflected in the Order of
Reassignment and the General Designation of District Judge for Service in Another District within the
Ninth Circuit.
Beyond that, Karalash and Hunter are incorrect in their statement (made without citation to
anything) that this Court “does not allow telephonic appearance by counsel.” Docket No. 8-1, at 2:7-8.
As a practical matter, the undersigned routinely allows such appearances with respect to all matters when
requested by counsel, except where the issue to be heard is sufficiently complex such that in-person
appearances and argument are warranted (an assessment that can be made on a case-by-case basis in
consultation with the Court in advance of the scheduled hearing date) or concerns a motion proceeding
that will require an in-person evidentiary presentation or the Court’s assessment of credibility of
witnesses.
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

JG
Page 1 of 2

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

2:16-cv-02528-GHW

Date

Title

February 8, 2017

In re Gorski (Cnty. of Sacramento v. Gorski, et al.)

Furthermore, given that this action is a bankruptcy appeal, Karalash’s and Hunter’s discussion of
the convenience of witnesses and location of evidence are odd entreaties to make indeed. Like most any
appeal, the Court anticipates that the decision rendered in this one will require no appearance by any
witness and no submission of any evidence (aside from the designation of the record on appeal)
whatsoever.1
The motion is DENIED and the hearing set for February 13, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. is vacated.
In addition to the above, the Court notifies the parties of the following requirements:
(1) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure (“FRBP”) 8010(b)(4), the Court will require that
it be supplied with one paper copy of the complete record on appeal (as defined in FRBP 8009(a)(4)) no
later than the date of the filing of Appellants’ opening brief.
(2) The timetable for the filing of briefs will be governed by FRBP 8018(a).
(3) The parties shall meet and confer and file a joint report by February 21, 2017, indicating the
estimated date when the docketing of the notice that the record has been prepared and/or is available
electronically can be expected.
(4) The Court expects that it will set oral arguments on the appeal within 21 days of the receipt of the
last brief. The parties can request that their appearances be telephonic or that the case be submitted on
the briefs alone. FRBP 8019. Additionally, the Court notes its discretion to waive oral argument
pursuant to FRBP 8019(b).

1

If it was the intention of Karalash and Hunter to have filed this motion in connection with the related action (i.e.
Case No. 16-2611), not in this bankruptcy appeal, they should take more care to review their filings. Nevertheless, the other
considerations the Court has discussed herein would be sufficient to still deny a similar motion if filed in that case.

:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

JG
Page 2 of 2