Brinkman et al v. Schweizer Aircraft Corporation et al

Filing 14

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting 12 Plaintiffs' motion to continue briefing and hearing schedules on Defendants' venue motions. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2010)

Brinkman et al v. Schweizer Aircraft Corporation et al

Doc. 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BRADLEY BRINKMAN and VICTORIA BRINKMAN, Plaintiffs, v. SCHWEIZER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. NO. C10-4601 TEH ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONTINUE BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULES ON DEFENDANTS' VENUE MOTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 The Court has carefully considered the parties' arguments concerning whether

14 Defendants' pending venue motions should be decided prior to considering whether this 15 action should be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 16 Defendants correctly observe that a court "may dispose of an action by a forum non

17 conveniens dismissal, bypassing questions of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, when 18 considerations of convenience, fairness, and judicial economy so warrant." Sinochem Int'l 19 Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007). Other courts have held that "the 20 Court's conclusion in Sinochem applies equally within the context of a motion to transfer 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)." San Francisco Tech., Inc. v. Glad Prods. Co., Case No. 22 C10-0966 JF (PVT), 2010 WL 2943537, at *6 n.8 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2010); see also, e.g., In 23 re LimitNone, LLC, 551 F.3d 572, 576-78 (7th Cir. 2008); Aftab v. Gonzalez, 597 F. Supp. 2d 24 76, 79 (D.D.C. 2009). 25 However, while Sinochem allows a court to consider venue issues before deciding

26 complex jurisdictional questions, it does not appear to require it. Nor do the parties' papers 27 establish that the jurisdictional questions in this case are so complex as to warrant deferring a 28 jurisdictional decision in favor of a less complex venue decision. Moreover, the Ninth

Dockets.Justia.com

1 Circuit has called into question, albeit in dicta, whether the analysis in Sinochem applies to 2 cases ­ like this one ­ that have been removed, as opposed to cases filed originally in federal 3 court: 4 5 6 7 8 For a case originally filed in federal court, the result would be the same, whether dismissed on jurisdictional or forum non conveniens grounds ­ dismissal would be inevitable and conclusive. For a case originating in state court, however, the difference could be significant. If the federal court dismisses on forum non conveniens grounds, the case is dismissed. But if removal is improper, the case is remanded to the state court. Thus, in a removal scenario, the sequencing of the decision may have practical consequences.

9 Provincial Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2009). 10 In light of the above, the Court finds good cause to GRANT Plaintiffs' motion to

United States District Court

11 continue proceedings on Defendants' venue motions until after Plaintiffs' anticipated motion
For the Northern District of California

12 to remand can be decided. Plaintiffs state that they will file their remand motion on or before 13 November 12, 2010. If Plaintiffs fail to do so, then the briefing and hearing schedule on 14 Defendants' two venue motions shall remain unchanged. However, if Plaintiffs file a remand 15 motion by November 12, 2010, then the venue motions shall be stayed until after the Court 16 decides whether this case should be remanded. To promote efficiency, the parties shall meet 17 and confer after Plaintiffs have filed their motion to determine whether jurisdictional 18 discovery is necessary. If so, the parties shall attempt to reach a stipulation on discovery 19 deadlines and a briefing and hearing schedule on Plaintiffs' motion. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: 11/10/10 24 25 26 27 28 2 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT