Laurence J. Graham v. DuPont De Nemours, Inc.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: January 15, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-09444
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAURENCE J. GRAHAM, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-09444-FLA (SKx)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE TRANSFERRED TO THE 14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., et al., CALIFORNIA OR THE EASTERN 15 Defendants. DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER 2 On January 30, 2024, Plaintiffs Laurence J. Graham and Betty Patrick Graham 3 (“Plaintiffs”), acting in pro se, filed a complaint in the San Francisco County Superior 4 Court, requesting rescission of contracts and damages related to real properties 5 allegedly located in Sussex and Dinwiddie Counties, Virginia. Graham v. DuPont de 6 Nemours, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-01551-RFL (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 1 at 2.1 On February 7 8, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming additional entities as 8 Defendants. Id. at 2, 12–46. On March 13, 2024, Defendant Iluka Resources, Inc. 9 (“Ikura Resources”) removed that action to the United States District Court for the 10 Northern District of California, alleging diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 11 Id. at 1–6. 12 On September 30, 2024, Plaintiffs, acting in pro se, filed a substantially 13 identical complaint in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against the same and 14 additional Defendants, regarding the same real properties, and requesting the same 15 relief as in the action before the Northern District of California. Dkt. 1-1 at 18–61. 16 On October 31, 2024, Defendant Ikura Resources removed the subject action to this 17 court, alleging diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Dkt. 1. 18 “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a 19 district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it 20 might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have 21 consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). A district court may “transfer a case sua sponte 22 under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, as codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), so 23 long as the parties are first given the opportunity to present their views on the issue.” 24 Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). 25 / / / 26

27 1 The court cites documents by the page numbers added by the court’s CM/ECF 28 System, rather than any page numbers listed in documents natively. I Because Plaintiffs filed a duplicative action that is pending currently before the 2 | Northern District of California, prior to filing the subject action before this court, the 3 court ORDERS the parties to Show Cause (“OSC”) in writing, within seven (7) days 4 | of this Order, why the action should not be transferred to the Northern District of 5 | California or to the Eastern District of Virginia, where the properties are purportedly 6 | located. The parties may file one brief per side, which shall not exceed 15 pages per 7 | brief. Failure to respond timely shall result in the transfer of this action without 8 | further notice from the court. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 | Dated: January 15, 2025 B FERNANDO'L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28