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)

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