Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00123/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00123-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

This case arises from a contractual dispute between Plaintiff Critters of the Cinema, Inc.

(“Critters”) and Defendant Nestle Purina Petcare Co. (“Nestle”). Nestle canceled a contractual 

agreement whereby Critters provided and trained specific types of cats for the advertising of 

Nestle’s “Fancy Feast” brand cat food. Critters filed suit in the Kern County Superior Court and 

alleged claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair 

dealing, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. On March 1, 2016, 

following removal to this Court, Nestle filed a motion to change venue to the Eastern District of 

Missouri pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). See Doc. No. 12. Critters has opposed the motion and 

contends that venue should not be changed to the Eastern District of Missouri. See Doc. No. 21. 

On April 5, 2016, the Court took Nestle’s motion under submission.

Upon review, an additional venue other than the Eastern District of California or the 

Eastern District of Missouri may be appropriate and convenient in this case. Critters and its cats 

are located in Lake Hughes, California, and Lake Hughes is located in the Central District of 

California. Therefore, it appears that many of the services provided by Critters to Nestle, as well 

CRITTERS OF THE CINEMA, INC., a 

California Corporation,

Plaintiff

v.

NESTLE PURINA PETCARE CO., a 

Missouri corporation, and DOES 1 

through 20, inclusive,

Defendants

CASE NO. 1:16-CV-0123 AWI JLT 

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING

Case 1:16-cv-00123-AWI-JLT Document 26 Filed 05/06/16 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

as the conduct related to the tortious interference claim, would have occurred in the Central 

District of California. 

A transfer of venue under § 1404(a) may be accomplished by a court sua sponte. See

Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986); Pavao v. Unifund CCR Partners, 934 

F.Supp.2d 1238, 1242 (S.D. Cal. 2013); Engel v. CBS, Inc., 886 F. Supp. 728, 729-30 (C.D. Cal. 

1995); see also Union Elec. Co. v. Energy Ins. Mut., Ltd., 689 F.3d 968, 971 (8th Cir. 2012). 

Before a court sua sponte transfers a case under § 1404(a), the court must first give the parties “the 

opportunity to present their views on the issue.” Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488; Pavao, 934 

F.Supp.2d at 1242; Engel, 886 F.Supp. at 729-30. In accordance with Costlow, the Court will 

give the parties the opportunity to present their views on whether this case should be transferred to 

the Central District of California under § 1404(a). See id.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within ten (10) days of service of this order, the parties shall submit supplemental briefing 

and evidence (if appropriate) on the issue of whether this case should be transferred to the 

Central District of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); and

2. Within seven (7) days of submission of the supplemental briefing, the parties shall file 

replies to the supplemental briefing.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1 At this time, the Court does not intend to hold an oral argument. If the Court determines that a hearing would be 

helpful after it has reviewed all of the supplemental briefing, the Court at that time will set a hearing. Otherwise, the 

matter will be decided on the papers. See Local Rule 230(g).

Case 1:16-cv-00123-AWI-JLT Document 26 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 2