Morningstar et al v. Jianping et al
Filing
103
ORDER RE: TRANSFER TO DISTRICT OF NEVADA by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Defendant's Motion is, for all intents and purposes, GRANTED. Rather than stay this case, however, the court transfers this matter to the District of Nevada. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated.) (bp) [Transferred from California Central on 3/13/2013.]
1
2
O
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
13
M. AILEEN MORNINGSTAR and
ALICE SLETTEDAHL,
Derivatively on Behalf of
Nominal Defendant RINO
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
14
Plaintiffs,
12
15
16
17
18
19
v.
ZOU DEJUN, KENNITH C.
JOHNSON, QUAN XIE, BEN WANG,
LI YU, BRUCE RICHARDSON, YI
LIU, ZHANG WEIGUO and RINO
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
Defendants.
___________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 11-00655 DDP (VBKx)
ORDER RE: TRANSFER TO DISTRICT OF
NEVADA
[Dkt. No. 90]
20
21
Presently before the court is Nominal Defendant RINO
22
International Corportation’s Motion to Stay this shareholder
23
derivative action.
24
This case is one of four shareholder derivative suits filed on
25
behalf of RINO.
26
court.
27
28
This is the second such action filed in federal
The first (the “Nevada Action”) was filed in the District
1
of Nevada on December 20, 2010, approximately one month before this
2
case was initiated.1
3
Defendants Zou Dejun and Qiu Jianping recently sold two
4
California houses to help fund the settlement of a related
5
shareholder class action in this court.
6
Winchester ¶ 36.)
7
sales yielded an excess of approximately $2.4 million.
8
Plaintiffs have sought discovery regarding these assets, and intend
9
to seek to establish a constructive trust over the $2.4 million.
10
11
(Declaration of Robin
Plaintiffs in this case believe that the home
(Id. ¶ 37.)
(Id. ¶ 49.)
In the meantime, the Nevada Action has proceeded, and may soon
12
settle.
13
settlement approval in November 2012.
14
agree that final approval of the proposed settlement in the Nevada
15
Action will extinguish Plaintiffs’ claims in this case.
16
The parties to the Nevada Action moved for preliminary
The parties here appear to
The court in the Nevada Action has yet to rule on the pending
17
motion for preliminary approval.
18
preliminarily approve the settlement, Plaintiffs here intend to
19
object to the settlement in the Nevada Action at the final approval
20
stage.
21
Even if the court does
The “first-to-file” rule “permits this court to decline
22
jurisdiction when a complaint involving the same parties and issues
23
has already been filed in another district.”
24
Psystar, 658 F.3d 1150, 1161 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation and
25
citation omitted).
26
discretion, stay, transfer, or dismiss the later-filed suit.
Apple Inc. v.
In such cases, this court may, in its
27
1
28
The Nevada suit is In re RINO International Derivative
Litigation, No. 10-cv-2209-MMD-GWF.
2
1
Cedars-Sinai Med. Center v. Shalala, 125 F.3d 765, 769 (9th Cir.
2
1997).
3
of inconsistent decisions.
4
946 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir. 1991); Meru Networks, Inc. v. Extricom
5
Ltd., No. C-10-2021 RMW, 2010 WL 346315 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31,
6
2010).
7
2) the similarity of the parties, and 3) the similarity of the
8
issues.
9
The rule promotes judicial efficiency and reduces the risk
Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods., Inc.,
Threshold factors include 1) the chronology of the actions,
Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 625.
All three factors here weigh in favor of transfer to the
10
District of Nevada.
11
not in dispute.
12
defendant in this case who is not named in the Nevada Action, the
13
parties in the two actions need only be substantially similar for
14
the first-to-file rule to apply.
15
Pittsburgh v. Payless Shoesource, Inc., No. C-11-1892 EMC, 2012 WL
16
3277222 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012).
17
The chronology and similarity of issues are
Though Plaintiffs argue that there is one
Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is, for all intents and
18
purposes, GRANTED.
19
transfers this matter to the District of Nevada.2
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Rather than stay this case, however, the court
21
22
Dated: March 12, 2013
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge
23
24
25
26
2
27
28
Whether this case should be consolidated, the role of
Plaintiffs’ present counsel, and whether to establish a
constructive trust over any Defendant’s assets are issues best left
to the Nevada court.
3
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?