McPhail v. FCA US, LLC.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PRISCILLA MCPHAIL and JAMES Case No.: 24-cv-1879-WQH-DDL MCPHAIL, ORDER RE JANUARY 21, 2025 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. HEARING FCA US, LLC, 16 Defendant.

18 On January 6, 2025, the Court ordered the parties to show cause (1) why this case should not be dismissed for improper venue or transferred to another district in the interest of justice and (2) whether Plaintiffs have standing to seek relief under the Song-Beverly Act and Cummins, Inc. v. Superior Ct., 36 Cal. 4th 478, 483 (2005) (“We conclude that the Act does not apply unless the vehicle was purchased in California.”). Dkt. No. 7. The Court set the matter for a hearing on January 21, 2025.

24 Plaintiffs and Defendant submitted written responses to the Order to Show Cause.

25 Defense counsel appeared at the January 21 hearing; however, Plaintiffs’ counsel of record did not. Rather, attorney Ryan Baggs appeared for Plaintiffs. Baggs represented that he had filed a notice of appearance the day before, but the docket does not reflect any such notice. At the January 21 hearing, Baggs did not provide any information that would ||support a finding that venue is appropriate in the Southern District of California or that || Plaintiffs have standing to pursue their Song-Beverly Act claims, because they did not || purchase the subject vehicle in California.

4 That Plaintiffs’ counsel of record elected not to appear at the January 21 hearing ||raises substantial concerns separate from Plaintiffs’ inability to explain why venue is ||appropriate in this District or why they have standing under the Song-Beverly Act.

7 || Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ counsel of record must appear in person at all future || proceedings in this case. The Court will issue a separate order resetting the Early Neutral || Evaluation and Case Management Conference.

10 IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 Dated: January 30, 2025 ae 2 Tad Libor 13 Hon.DavidD.Leshner SOS 14 United States Magistrate Judge