Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02528/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02528-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:1334 Bankruptcy Appeal

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. 2:16-cv-02528-GHW Date February 8, 2017

Title In re Gorski (Cnty. of Sacramento v. Gorski, et al.)

Present: The Honorable GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Javier Gonzalez None Present

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None Present None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TRANSFER

Counterclaimant/Cross-claimants Daniel Karalash and Robert Hunter move for a transfer of

venue in this bankruptcy appeal to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 

See Docket No. 8. The United States of America, on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service, and

plaintiff County of Sacramento have filed statements of non-opposition. See Docket Nos. 11, 12. 

The Court denies the motion. This action was randomly selected for reassignment to the

undersigned judge via an Order of Reassignment issued by Chief U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence

O'Neill as part of an effort to alleviate the caseload burdens of the Eastern District of California. See

Docket No. 6. That Order of Reassignment made reference to a General Designation of District Judge

for Service in Another District within the Ninth Circuit issued by the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals, the Hon. Sidney R. Thomas, on November 2, 2016. This Court will not make use of

the Section 1404(a) factors to foist upon the Northern District of California what this Court agreed to

undertake as part of an administrative shifting of caseload burdens, as reflected in the Order of

Reassignment and the General Designation of District Judge for Service in Another District within the

Ninth Circuit.

Beyond that, Karalash and Hunter are incorrect in their statement (made without citation to

anything) that this Court “does not allow telephonic appearance by counsel.” Docket No. 8-1, at 2:7-8.

As a practical matter, the undersigned routinely allows such appearances with respect to all matters when

requested by counsel, except where the issue to be heard is sufficiently complex such that in-person

appearances and argument are warranted (an assessment that can be made on a case-by-case basis in

consultation with the Court in advance of the scheduled hearing date) or concerns a motion proceeding

that will require an in-person evidentiary presentation or the Court’s assessment of credibility of

witnesses.

:

Initials of Preparer JG

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2

Case 2:16-cv-02528-GHW Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. 2:16-cv-02528-GHW Date February 8, 2017

Title In re Gorski (Cnty. of Sacramento v. Gorski, et al.)

Furthermore, given that this action is a bankruptcy appeal, Karalash’s and Hunter’s discussion of

the convenience of witnesses and location of evidence are odd entreaties to make indeed. Like most any

appeal, the Court anticipates that the decision rendered in this one will require no appearance by any

witness and no submission of any evidence (aside from the designation of the record on appeal)

whatsoever.1

The motion is DENIED and the hearing set for February 13, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. is vacated.

In addition to the above, the Court notifies the parties of the following requirements:

(1) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure (“FRBP”) 8010(b)(4), the Court will require that

it be supplied with one paper copy of the complete record on appeal (as defined in FRBP 8009(a)(4)) no

later than the date of the filing of Appellants’ opening brief.

(2) The timetable for the filing of briefs will be governed by FRBP 8018(a).

(3) The parties shall meet and confer and file a joint report by February 21, 2017, indicating the

estimated date when the docketing of the notice that the record has been prepared and/or is available

electronically can be expected.

(4) The Court expects that it will set oral arguments on the appeal within 21 days of the receipt of the

last brief. The parties can request that their appearances be telephonic or that the case be submitted on

the briefs alone. FRBP 8019. Additionally, the Court notes its discretion to waive oral argument

pursuant to FRBP 8019(b).

1

 If it was the intention of Karalash and Hunter to have filed this motion in connection with the related action (i.e.

Case No. 16-2611), not in this bankruptcy appeal, they should take more care to review their filings. Nevertheless, the other

considerations the Court has discussed herein would be sufficient to still deny a similar motion if filed in that case.

:

Initials of Preparer JG

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 2

Case 2:16-cv-02528-GHW Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 2 of 2