California Service Employees Health & Welfare Trust Fund et al v. Command Security Corporation

Filing 65

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 12/10/2012. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/30/2012. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 CALIFORNIA SERVICE EMPLOYEES HEALTH & WELFARE TRUST FUND, et al., 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Plaintiffs, No. C-12-1079 EMC RELATED TO No. C-12-4032 EMC v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 COMMAND SECURITY CORPORATION, 13 Defendant. ___________________________________/ 14 MARLENE HERRERA, et al., 15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. 17 COMMAND SECURITY CORP., 18 19 Defendant. ___________________________________/ 20 21 22 The above-referenced cases are related cases. Case No. C-12-1079 EMC shall hereinafter be 23 referred to as the ERISA Case. Case No. C-12-4032 EMC shall hereinafter be referred to as the 24 RLA (Railway Labor Act) Case. 25 Previously, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to transfer venue in the ERISA Case. See 26 ERISA Case (Docket No. 38) (order). At the time that the Court denied the motion, the RLA Case 27 had not yet been filed. See RLA case (Docket No. 1) (complaint). After the RLA Case was filed, 28 1 the RLA Plaintiffs moved to have their case related to the ERISA Case. The Court granted the 2 motion in spite of Defendant’s opposition. See ERISA Case (Docket No. 46) (order). 3 Defendant then moved in the RLA Case for a transfer of venue to the Central District of 4 California. The Court held a hearing on that motion on November 30, 2012. At the hearing, the 5 Court indicated that its inclination was to transfer the RLA Case to the Central District. However, if 6 the RLA Case were to be transferred, then arguably the ERISA Case should be transferred as well 7 given their relatedness, despite the Court’s prior order denying transfer (which, as noted above, was 8 made at a time when the RLA Case was not yet filed). Cf. United States v. Smith, 389 F.3d 944, 949 9 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that law-of-the-case doctrine does not bar a court from reconsidering its own order provided that it has not been divested of jurisdiction over that order). Because the Court 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 is, in essence, sua sponte reconsidering its order denying transfer in the ERISA case, it shall give the 12 ERISA Plaintiffs an opportunity to comment on whether a transfer of their case is now appropriate 13 given the changed circumstances. 14 Accordingly, the Court hereby issues this order to show cause. The ERISA Plaintiffs are 15 ordered to show cause as to why their case should not be transferred to the Central District of 16 California. The ERISA Plaintiffs shall have until December 10, 2012 to file their response to this 17 order to show cause. Defendant shall then have until December 17, 2012 to file a brief in response 18 to the ERISA Plaintiffs’ brief. 19 20 The hearing on Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment in the ERISA case is temporarily VACATED until after the Court revisits the issue of transfer. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: November 30, 2012 25 EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 26 27 28 2

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?