Kurisu v. Svenhard Swedish Bakery Supplemental Key Management Retirement Plan

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: May 21, 2021
• Docket: 3:20-cv-06409
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KERRY KURISU, et al., Case No. 20-cv-06409-EMC

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL 9 v. BRIEFING ON VENUE AND SCHEDULING STATUS 10 SVENHARD SWEDISH BAKERY CONFERENCE SUPPLEMENTAL KEY MANAGEMENT 11 RETIREMENT PLAN, et al., Docket Nos. 38-39

12 Defendants.

13 14 15 The Court has reviewed the parties’ supplemental briefs regarding venue. Having 16 considered such, the Court concludes that a § 1404(a) transfer of the entire action to the District of 17 Oregon would not be proper. The three individual defendants who have appeared in this case (Mr. 18 Svenhard, Mr. Kunkel, and Mr. Kohles) do not consent to transfer to Oregon, and there is no 19 indication that the claims against them could have been brought in Oregon. See 28 U.S.C. § 20 1404(a) (providing that, “[f]or convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a 21 district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have 22 been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented”); see also Prescott- 23 Harris v. Fanning, No. 15-1716 (RC), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171360, at *21 (D.D.C. Dec. 12, 24 2016) (noting that there must be “venue with respect to each defendant and each cause of action”); 25 Gamboa v. USA Cycling, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-10051-ODW(MRWx), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56240, 26 at *10 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2013) (rejecting “[t]he theory of pendent-party venue [which[ provides 27 that if all claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and venue is proper as to at least 1 theory”; “federal courts have generally held that venue requirements must be satisfied for each 2 separate cause of action and as to each defendant.”). 3 The Court, however, sets a status conference in this case so that it may address with the 4 parties what coordination there should be between this action and the cases in the District of 5 Oregon. The Court acknowledges the Bakery Defendants’ position that it has no venue over them 6 and/or that claims against them should be severed and then transferred to Oregon. But at this 7 point, the Court does not make a ruling on that argument and simply wishes to discuss with the 8 parties what options there are regarding coordination, including but not limited to severance and 9 transfer. 10 The status conference shall be held at 10:30 a.m., June 10, 2021. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: May 21, 2021 15 16 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27