Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02120/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02120-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

**E-filed 8/18/11** 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

TYLER HINKLE, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

SONY NETWORK ENTERTAINMENT 

AMERICA, INC., 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________/

No. C 10-5673 RS 

ORDER RE MOTION TO 

TERMINATE DEADLINES AND 

HEARING DATES 

Defendant moves to terminate all deadlines and pending hearing dates in this action in light 

of the Conditional Transfer Order entered by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Plaintiff 

opposes, arguing that his fully-briefed motion to remand should go forward on August 25, 2011 as 

presently scheduled. While jurisdiction may lie to decide the remand motion pending the transfer, 

the interests of justice and judicial economy do not warrant doing so under the particular 

circumstances presented here. 

The remand issue turns on interpreting the effect of an arguably ambiguous contractual 

venue provision. As such, this case differs from Moton v. Bayer Corp., 2005 WL 1653731 (S.D. 

Ala. July 8, 2005), cited by plaintiff, in which the court faced a “simple, garden-variety attack on the 

amount in controversy,” and concluded that, “[t[he proper resolution of the motion is plain and not 

susceptible of reasonable dispute.” Id. at *1–2. Furthermore, it appears there may be additional 

actions subject to the transfer order that will present the same venue issue. Although one such case 

Case 3:11-cv-02120-AJB-MDD Document 30 Filed 08/18/11 Page 1 of 2
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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

was recently related to this action, it appears likely that the MDL court will later be called on to 

decide the identical question in one or more other cases. Accordingly, the hearing on plaintiff’s 

motion to remand and the initial Case Management Conference are hereby both continued 

provisionally to October 13, 2011, at 1:30 p.m., to go forward at that time only in the event this 

matter is not transferred to the MDL proceeding. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 8/18/11 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:11-cv-02120-AJB-MDD Document 30 Filed 08/18/11 Page 2 of 2