Herman et al v. Cataphora, Inc. et al

Filing 60

ORDER GRANTING 51 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE FILE TO THE TRANSFEROR COURT. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on January 24, 2013. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RUSS M. HERMAN and ARNOLD LEVIN, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 No. C 12-04965 JSW Plaintiffs, v. CATAPHORA INC. and ROGER CHADDERDON, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE FILE TO THE TRANSFEROR COURT 13 Defendants. 14 / 15 16 Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to transfer the case file to the transferor court. 17 The Court finds that this matter is appropriate for disposition without oral argument and it is 18 hereby deemed submitted. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing set for 19 February 22, 2013 is HEREBY VACATED. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ papers, 20 considered their arguments, and the relevant legal authority, the Court hereby GRANTS 21 Plaintiffs’ motion and transfers the case to the Eastern District of Louisiana. 22 BACKGROUND 23 On February 23, 2012, Plaintiffs, Russ M. Herman and Arnold Levin, filed a complaint 24 against Defendants, Cataphora, Inc. and Roger Chadderdon, in the United States District Court 25 for the Eastern District of Louisiana asserting claims for defamation and interference with 26 prospective advantage. (Motion at 2.) On June 5, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss 27 for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. (Id.) On September 19, 2012, the Honorable Eldon 28 E. Fallon of the Eastern District of Louisiana granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and 1 ordered that the matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern 2 District of California. (Id.) Simultaneously with the entry of Judge Fallon’s transfer order 3 (“Transfer Order”), the Clerk of the Eastern District of Louisiana electronically transferred the 4 case file to this district. (Id.) 5 On September 20, 2012, the day after Judge Fallon granted Defendants’ motion to 6 dismiss, Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. 7 (Id.) The Plaintiffs’ appeal was docketed with the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on 8 September 26, 2012. (Declaration of Frank M. Pitre, Ex. 2.) 9 In this Court, Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to return the file. (Opp. Br. at 1.) On November 8, 2012, this Court denied the motion. (Order dated November 8, 2012 at 1.) 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Plaintiffs re-filed the request as a proper motion to transfer, seeking to have this Court return 12 the case file to the Eastern District of Louisiana for appellate review of the Transfer Order. 13 (Opp. Br. at 1-2.) 14 15 ANALYSIS Plaintiffs request that this Court return the case file to the transferor court in the Eastern 16 District of Louisiana so that Plaintiffs may seek review of the Transfer Order in the United 17 States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. (Motion at 2.) Defendants contend that the case 18 file should remain in the Northern District of California and argue that (1) the Eastern District 19 of Louisiana no longer has jurisdiction over this matter; and (2) the Plaintiffs’ appeal to the 20 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is improper because the Transfer Order is interlocutory and not 21 immediately appealable. (Opp. Br. at 2.) 22 Transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) strips the transferor district court and the 23 corresponding appellate court of jurisdiction the moment the case is docketed in the transferee 24 court. Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1987). Furthermore, the local rules for the 25 Eastern District of Louisiana do not provide that the transferor court should retain the case file 26 for a certain period so as to allow a petitioner to seek appellate review. See generally U.S. Dist. 27 Ct. Rules E.D. La. By contrast, in the Northern District of California, Civil Local Rule 3-14 28 2 1 provides that an “order transferring an action to another district shall become effective 14 days 2 after it is filed, unless the order specifies a specific effective date.” N.D. Civil L.R. 3-14. 3 It is a long-held practice of the court “in extraordinary circumstances involving a grave 4 miscarriage of justice” to review via mandamus an order transferring a case to a district court in 5 another circuit. NBS Imaging Systems, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Eastern Dist. of Cal., 841 6 F.2d 297, 298 (9th Cir. 1988). In NBS Imaging Systems, the District Court for the Eastern 7 District of California granted the transfer order and held the case file for 26 days after the 8 court’s written order. Id. However, the party seeking appellate review waited more than 35 9 days, and until the file had been transferred to the Northern District of Indiana, before filing its petition before the Ninth Circuit. Id. While the Ninth Circuit denied the petitioner’s writ 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 because it was filed after the case documents had been transferred to another circuit, the court 12 stated that one factor “courts consider when mandamus is sought in this situation is whether the 13 district court acted hastily in transferring the case, thus precluding a diligent petitioner from 14 seeking mandamus in the appellate court.” Id. 15 Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit the day 16 after Judge Fallon issued the Transfer Order. (Motion at 2.) However, the Clerk’s immediate 17 transfer of the case file to this Court, which deprived the Eastern District of Louisiana of 18 jurisdiction, has jeopardized the Plaintiffs’ timely request for appellate review in the transferor 19 circuit. (Id. at 4.) While the local rules for the Eastern District of Louisiana do not contain a 20 rule requiring that the case file remain in the court’s jurisdiction for a certain period so as to 21 allow the parties to seek appellate review, transferring the case file simultaneously with the 22 entry of the Transfer Order unfairly deprives Plaintiffs of the opportunity to seek appellate 23 review in the transferor circuit. Unlike the petitioners in NBS Imaging Systems, who waited 24 more than 35 days to file their petition for appellate review, Plaintiffs in this case filed their 25 notice of appeal one day following the Transfer Order. (Motion at 2.) This Court finds that this 26 matter presents an extraordinary circumstance. A grave miscarriage of justice would result if an 27 administrative glitch were to deprive the Plaintiffs of an opportunity to seek appellate review in 28 3 1 the transferor circuit.1 Thus, the case file shall be returned to the transferor court in the Eastern 2 District of Louisiana in order to allow Plaintiffs to seek appellate review of the Transfer Order 3 in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. 4 CONCLUSION 5 For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to transfer the case file 6 to the transferor court. The Clerk is directed to return this case file to the Eastern District of 7 Louisiana forthwith. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: January 24, 2013 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Transfer orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) are not appealable prior to a final judgment, although a petitioner may seek review of a transfer order by way of a writ of mandamus. Pacific Car & Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F.2d 949, 951-52 (9th Cir. 1968). In instances where a party has sought an appeal instead of a writ of mandamus, some courts have dealt with the issue as a matter of form and treated the appeal as a writ of mandamus. See Magnetic Engineering & Mfg. Co. v. Dings Mfg. Co., 178 F.2d 866, 868-69 (2d Cir. 1950). Nonetheless, in this instance, whether or not the Plaintiffs will be allowed to pursue appellate review of the Transfer Order in the transferor circuit in the form of an immediate appeal, a writ of mandamus, or at all, is a question that lies properly within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See NBS Imaging Systems, 841 F.2d at 198 (holding that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals “has jurisdiction to issue the writ despite docketing of the case in the Northern District of Indiana”). 1 4

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?