Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04117/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04117-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1 Plaintiff’s counsel is in El Segundo, in Southern California. Compl. at 1.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

LAURA SEIDL, individually,

derivatively and on behalf of all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AMERICAN CENTURY COMPANIES,

INC., et al.,

Defendants. 

No. C 08-04117 SBA

ORDER

Before the Court is plaintiff’s complaint [Docket No. 1]. Plaintiff alleges she is a

shareholder in a mutual fund, the American Century Ultra Fund (the “Fund”). Compl. ¶ 2. She

alleges defendants unlawfully invested her money in illegal gambling businesses. Id. ¶ 1. Plaintiff

alleges she is a resident of New York.1

 Id. ¶ 11. She alleges defendant American Century

Companies, Inc. (“ACC”) has its principal place of business in Kansas City, Missouri. Id. ¶ 14. She

also alleges ACC has offices in San Francisco and New York. Id. She further alleges defendant

American Century Investment Management (“ACIM”) has its principal place of business in Kansas

City, Missouri. Id. ¶ 15. She alleges ACIM is a subsidiary of ACC, and that ACC selects ACIM’s

executives and board of directors. Id ¶ 14. She further alleges ACIM manages the Fund and

engaged in the unlawful conduct. Id. As individual defendants, plaintiff has named executive

officers and directors of the Fund. Id. ¶¶ 16-21.

For her verified venue allegation, plaintiff states, “Venue is proper in this district pursuant to

28 U S.C. § 1391 and 18 U.S.C. § 1965 (RICO) because some of the acts and practices complained

of herein occurred in substantial part within this district and because one or more Defendants reside,

has an agent, or transacts their affairs within this district.” Compl. ¶ 23. Plaintiff does not elaborate.

///

Case 4:08-cv-04117-SBA Document 32 Filed 10/08/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 For counting purposes, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a)(2) shall not apply to this period.

2

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT all parties shall file briefs of five

pages or less, within seven days of the date of the entry of this Order,2

 stating why the Court should

or should not transfer this matter to the Western District of Missouri or the Southern District of New

York, and if transferred their preferred venue. Further, the parties shall indicate all other pending

civil and criminal matters related to or regarding this matter or the facts or events giving rise to it. 

Alternatively, plaintiff may withdraw this matter and re-file it in a district more closely related to the

events giving rise to this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

October 7, 2008 _________________________________

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-04117-SBA Document 32 Filed 10/08/08 Page 2 of 2