1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY Case No. 8:24-cv-00660-FLA (DFMx) COM PANY OF CONNECTICUT, 12 et al. , ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE Plaintiffs, TRANSFERRED 14 v. 15

16 WEST AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19

20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER 2 On February 14, 2024, Plaintiffs The Travelers Indemnity Company of 3 Connecticut and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Plaintiffs”) filed 4 a Complaint in the Orange County Superior Court, asserting one cause of action for 5 equitable contribution against Defendants West American Insurance Company (“West 6 American”) and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Liberty Mutual”) (collectively, 7 “Defendants”). Dkt. 1-1 (Compl.). On March 25, 2024, Defendants removed the 8 action to this court, alleging the existence of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28

(a). Dkt. 1. On April 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Doe Amendment, 10 naming Defendant Wausau Underwriters Insurance Company (“Wausau”) as Doe 11 Defendant 1. Dkt. 11. West American, Liberty Mutual, and Wausau will collectively 12 be referred to as “Defendants.” 13 Plaintiffs allege they are Connecticut companies with principal places of 14 business in Connecticut. Compl. ¶¶ 2–3. Defendant West American is an Indiana 15 corporation with its principal place of business in Massachusetts. Dkt. 1 ¶ 9. 16 Defendant Liberty Mutual is a Massachusetts Corporation with its principal place of 17 business in Massachusetts. Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 9–10. Defendant Wausau is a Wisconsin 18 corporation with its principal place of business in Massachusetts. Dkt. 25 at 3–4. 19 According to the parties, this action arises out of an underlying action titled, Cabrillo 20 Unified School District v. West Bay Builders, Inc., San Mateo County Superior Court 21 Case No. 17CIV00937 (the “Cabrillo action”), which concerns construction defects 22 that allegedly occurred in connection with the construction of a building in San Mateo 23 County. Compl. ¶ 1; Dkt. 1 ¶ 4. San Mateo County falls within the jurisdiction of the 24 United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 25 “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a 26 district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it 27 might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have 28 consented.”

(a) (“Section 1404(a)”). A district court may transfer a 1 || case sua sponte under § 1404(a), so long as the parties are first given the opportunity 2 | to present their views on the issue. Costlow v. Weeks,

(9th Cir. 3 | 1986). The court reviewed the Complaint (Dkt. 1-1), the Notice of Removal (Dkt. 1), 4 | and the parties’ Joint Case Management Statement and Joint Rule 26(f) Report and 5 | Discovery Plan (Dkt. 25), but did not find any facts that tie the parties or their dispute 6 | to this district. 7 Accordingly, the court ORDERS the parties to Show Cause (“OSC’’) in writing 8 | □□ □□ before June 24, 2024, why this action should not be transferred, pursuant to 28 9 | U.S.C. § 1404(a), to the Northern District of California, the District of Connecticut, or 10 | the District of Massachusetts. The parties may file one brief per side, which shall not 11 | exceed 10 pages. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 ; 15 | Dated: June 17, 2024 FERNANDOFE. A 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28