Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02039/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02039-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 368
Nature of Suit: Asbestos Personal Injury - Prod.liab.
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 13-5003 PA (SHx) Date July 16, 2013

Title Robert Finamore, et al. v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp., et al.

Present: The

Honorable

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Paul Songco N/A N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None None

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The Court has reviewed the Notice of Removal and Complaint filed in this action. According to

Complaint, which was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, plaintiff Robert Finamore (“Plaintiff”) was

exposed to asbestos while serving in the United States Navy in San Diego and San Francisco, while

employed in various capacities in Livermore and Sacramento, and in Tracy and other “various locations

in California” while performing repairs and maintenance to his home and vehicles. The only residence

Plaintiff alleges to have resided in is located in Tracy, California, which is within the jurisdiction of the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (the “Eastern District”). The

Complaint does not allege that any of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred within the

Central District of California. Nor does the Complaint allege any other basis for venue in the Central

District of California.

That Plaintiff’s counsel maintains an office within the Central District of California is not a

satisfactory basis for venue in this District. The Court therefore orders the parties to show cause in

writing why this action should not be transferred to the Eastern District, the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California (the “Southern District”), or the United States District Court for

the Northern District of California (the “Northern District”) for the convenience of the parties and

witnesses, and in the interests of justice. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 105(b)(1), 1404(a). The parties’ briefs in

response to the order to show cause shall not exceed 15 pages. All factual matters relied upon in the

parties’ submissions must be supported by appropriate declarations and admissible evidence. To assist

the Court in determining whether transfer is appropriate and in the interest of justice, the parties are

directed to address the following, in addition to sharing their beliefs as to which forum is more

convenient for the parties and witnesses:

1. Whether this action could have been brought in the Southern District, Eastern District, or

Northern District;

2. Whether venue is appropriate in the Southern District, Eastern District, or Northern

District;

3. What contacts, if any, each of the parties has to the Central District of California (the

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

Case 3:13-cv-02039-CAB-BGS Document 4 Filed 07/16/13 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 13-5003 PA (SHx) Date July 16, 2013

Title Robert Finamore, et al. v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp., et al.

“Central District”), the Southern District, Eastern District, and Northern District;

4. What connection Plaintiff’s causes of action have to the Central District, Southern

District, Eastern District, and Northern District, including the length of time Plaintiff was

working with or otherwise exposed to Defendants’ asbestos-containing products in each

judicial district; 

5. Which witnesses are expected to be called and where they reside;

6. The availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party

witnesses in the Central District, Southern District, Eastern District, and Northern

District;

7. The ease of access to sources of proof in each of the forums;

8. The expected difference in the cost of litigation in the Central District as compared to the

Southern District, Eastern District, and Northern District; and

9. Whether there are any alternative forums other than the Central District, Southern

District, Eastern District, and Northern District that would be more convenient for this

action, keeping in mind the inquiries above.1/

The parties’ responses to this Order shall be filed by August 12, 2013. The failure by Plaintiff to

timely respond to this Order may result in the transfer of this action to the Eastern District, Northern

District, or Southern District, without further notice. Nothing in this order should be construed as

limiting the ability of plaintiffs to timely file a Motion to Remand.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1/ For any District that contains multiple Divisions, the parties shall identify both the

District and Division they believe is more convenient.

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

Case 3:13-cv-02039-CAB-BGS Document 4 Filed 07/16/13 Page 2 of 2