Opinion
No. C-12-1079 EMC No. C-12-4032 EMC
11-30-2012
CALIFORNIA SERVICE EMPLOYEES HEALTH & WELFARE TRUST FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COMMAND SECURITY CORPORATION, Defendant. MARLENE HERRERA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COMMAND SECURITY CORP., Defendant.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
The above-referenced cases are related cases. Case No. C-12-1079 EMC shall hereinafter be referred to as the ERISA Case. Case No. C-12-4032 EMC shall hereinafter be referred to as the RLA (Railway Labor Act) Case.
Previously, the Court denied Defendant's motion to transfer venue in the ERISA Case. See ERISA Case (Docket No. 38) (order). At the time that the Court denied the motion, the RLA Case had not yet been filed. See RLA case (Docket No. 1) (complaint). After the RLA Case was filed, the RLA Plaintiffs moved to have their case related to the ERISA Case. The Court granted the motion in spite of Defendant's opposition. See ERISA Case (Docket No. 46) (order).
Defendant then moved in the RLA Case for a transfer of venue to the Central District of California. The Court held a hearing on that motion on November 30, 2012. At the hearing, the Court indicated that its inclination was to transfer the RLA Case to the Central District. However, if the RLA Case were to be transferred, then arguably the ERISA Case should be transferred as well given their relatedness, despite the Court's prior order denying transfer (which, as noted above, was made at a time when the RLA Case was not yet filed). Cf. United States v. Smith, 389 F.3d 944, 949 (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 is, in essence, sua sponte reconsidering its order denying transfer in the ERISA case, it shall give the ERISA Plaintiffs an opportunity to comment on whether a transfer of their case is now appropriate given the changed circumstances.
Accordingly, the Court hereby issues this order to show cause. The ERISA Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause as to why their case should not be transferred to the Central District of California. The ERISA Plaintiffs shall have until December 10, 2012 to file their response to this order to show cause. Defendant shall then have until December 17, 2012 to file a brief in response to the ERISA Plaintiffs' brief.
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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge