Motion to Remove Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------- I

DEBORAH ABEEL et al

Plaintiffs Case No1 12-cv-04269-(JBW) (RML)

-against-ONEWEST BANK FSB AND

BANK OF AMERICA NA et al PNC BANK NAS NOTICE OF MOTION TO SEVER OR

Defendants ALTERNATIVELY TO TRANSFER

---------------------------------------------------------- I

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT upon the anneled declaration of Walead Esmail Esq

sworn to on the 4th day of October 2012 together with the emibits referenced and anneled to

this declaration and upon all of the pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein Defendants

OneWest Bank FSB and PNC Bank National Association will move this Court before the

Hon Jack B Weinstein at the United States Courthouse located at 225 Cadman Plaza Easl

Brooklyn New York 11201 on October 252012 at 1000 am or as soon thereafter as counsel

can be heard for an order severing and dismissing from this action all Plaintiffs elcept for the

first named Plaintiff or in the alternative transferring this action to the Central District of

California together with such other and further relief that this Court deems just proper

equitable and appropriate under the circumstances herein

1

Dated October 42012 Respectfully submitted

lsi Richard E Gottlieb Richard Gottlieb DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 10 South Wacker Drive Suite 2300 Chicago Illinois 60606 Phone (312) 876-1700 Fax (312) 627-2302 rgottliebdvkemacom

Attorneysfor Defendants One West Bank FSB and PNC Bank National Association

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------- )(

DEBORAH ABEEL et al

Plaintiffs

-against-

BANK OF AMERICA NA et al

Defendants

---------------------------------------------------------- )(

October 42012

Case No 112-cv-04269-(JBW) (RML)

ONEWEST BANK FSB AND PNC BANK NAS MOTION TO SEVER OR ALTERNATIVELY TO TRANSFER

Richard E Gottlieb DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 10 South Wacker Drive Suite 2300 Chicago Illinois 60606 Phone (312) 876-1700 Fa( (312) 627-2302 rgottliebdykemacom Attorneysfor Defendants One West Bank FSB and PNC Bank National Association

L

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES i

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1

II STATEMENT OF FACTS 2

A Filing and Removal 2

B Other Related Proceedings 4

III ARGUMENT 5

A THIS CASE SHOULD BE SEVERED PURSUANT TO FED R CIV P 21 5

B IN THE ALTERNATIVE THIS CASE SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

1 Venue Is Proper in the Central District of California Because Nearly Three Quarters of the Plaintiffs Reside in California 9

2 The Balance of Convenience and the Interests of Justice Weigh in Favor ofTransfer to the Central District of California 9

a The Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses the Availability of Process to Compel the Attendance of Unwilling Witnesses the Locus of Operative Facts the Location of Relevant Evidence and Judicial Economy and the Interests of Justice All Favor Transferring This Case to the Central District of California 10

1 The Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses and the A vai1ability of Process to Compel the Attendance ofUnwilling Witnesses 10

ii The Locus of Operative Facts and the Location of Evidence 11

111 Trial Efficiency Judicial Economy and the Interests of Justice 13

b Given the Strong Nexus with California Plaintiffs Choice of Forum the Forums Familiarity with Governing Law and the Relative Means of the Parties Should Be Afforded Little if Any Weight 14

1

1 Plaintiffs Choice of Forum Is Entitled to Little Weight 14

11 The Forums Familiarity with Governing Law 15

111 The Relative Means of the Parties Do Not Favor Plaintiffs Choice of Forum 17

c The Related Litigation Filed in the Central District of California Also Favors Transferring This Action to the Central District ofCalifornia 17

IV CONCLUSION 19

11

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s)

CASES

Al McZeal et al v JP Morgan Chase Bank NA et at CV 11-7739 7

Cento Group SPA v OroAmerica Inc 822 F Supp 1058 (SDNY 1993) 10

Coker v Bank ofAm 984 F Supp 757 (SDNY 1997) 13

Columbia Pictures Indus Inc v Fung 447 F Supp 2d 306 (SDNY 2006) 18

DH Blair amp Co Inc v Gottdiener 462 F3d 95 (2d Cir 2006) 10

Delta Air Lines Inc v Assn ofFlight Attendants CWA 720 F Supp 2d 213 (EDNY 2010) 8 9 10 17 18

Emerita Ross et at v Mortgage Electronic Systems Inc et al Case No CV 12-4830-0DW (Ex) (Ross) 4 5 15 17 18 19

Fink v Time Warner Cable 810 F Supp 2d 633 (SDNY 2011) 16

First City Fed Savings Bank v Register 677 F Supp 236 (SDNY 1988) 10

Fox News Network LLC v Time Warner Inc No 96-CV-4963 1997 WL 271723 (EDNY May 16 1997) (Weinstein J) 8 11 13 17 18

Ghaly v us Dept ofAgriculture 228 Supp 2d 283 (SDNY 2002) 5

Gonzalez et al v Bank ofAmerica NA 12-1007-SC Doc 24 (ND Cal Aug 24 2012) 7

Guido v L Oreal USA Inc Nos CV-11-1067 CAS (lCx) CV 11-5465 CAS (JCx) 2012 WL 1616912 (CD CaL May 7 2012) 16

Gutierrez et at v us Bank NA et aI CV 12-4713-GHK Doc 21 (CD Cal July 23 2012) 7

Hernandez v Graebel Van Lines 761 F Supp 983 (EDNY 1991) 10 11 14

1

In re Cuyahoga Equip_Corp 980 F 2d 110 (2d Cir 1992) 1 0

In re Hanger Orthopedic Grp Inc Sec Litig 418 F Supp 2d 164 (EDNY 2006) 9

In re WellPoint Inc Out-of-Network UCR Rates Litig No MDL 09-2074 PSG 2011 WL 3555610 (CD Cal Aug 112011) 16

In re Zyprexa Products Liability Litig MDL 1596 04-CV-1615 2004 WL 2812095 (EDNY Dec 32004) (Weinstein 1)6 7

Kolko v Holiday Inns Inc 672 F Supp 713 (SDNY 1987) 13

Laverde et al v Bank ofNew York Mellon et aJ CV 12-4567-JFW Doc 25 (CD Cal Aug 172012) 7

Lifesavers Concepts Ass n v Bank ofAm 112-cv-00923-TWT Doc 2 (ND Ga Apr 22012) 7

Morris v Northrop Grumman Corp 37 F Supp 2d 556 (EDNY 1999) 5

Murillo et al v Bank ofAm NA et al 212-cv-04507-DDP Doc 9 at 2 (CD Cal June 5 2012) 7

New Son Yeng Produce LLC v AampS Produce Inc No 07-CV-4292 (KAM) 2009 WL 2568566 (EDNY Aug 192009) 12 14

Ocean Walk Mall LLC v Kornitzer No 01 CIV 213 (DLC) 2001 WL 640847 (SDNY June 112011) 15

Prudential Sec Inc v Norcom Development Inc No 97 Civ 6308(DC) 1998 WL 397889 (SDNY July 16 1998) 16

Quan v Computer Scis Corp Nos 06-CV-3927 (CBA) (10) 06-CV-5100 (CBA) (JO) 2008 WL 89679 (EDNY Jan 7 2008) 17

Rabbi Jacob Joseph Sch V Province ofMendoza 342 F Supp 2d 124 (EDNY 2004) 18

Richards et aJ v Deutsche Bank et al CV 12-4786-DSF Doc 40 (CD Cal Aug 312012) 7

Robert v Dept ofJustice No 05-CV-2543NGGETB 2005 WL 3371480 (EDNY Dec 122005) 7

11

Sebrow v Zucker Goldberg amp Ackerman No 1O-CV-4767(NGG) 2012 WL 911552 (EDNY Mar 162012) 10 13 16

Sony Music Entertainment Inc v Does 1-40 326 F Supp 2d 556 (SDNY 2004) 5

Strauss v W Highland Capital Inc No 00-Civ-01184 (GEL) 2000 WL 1505957 (SDNY Oct 6 2000) 15

Sugay et al v Wells Fargo Bank NA et aI 22012-cv-04712-JFW Doc 18 (CD CaL July 122012) 7

Tait v BSHHome Appliances Corp No SACV 10-711 DOC (ANx) 2011 WL 1832941 (CD Cal May 122011) 16

us Fid amp Guar Co v Republic Drug Co 800 F Supp 1076 (EDNY 1992) 8 14

Wald v Bank ofAm Corp No l1-CV-5957 (ENV)(JO) 2012 WL 1388198 (EDNY Apr 192012) 14 18

Wine Markets Intl Inc v Bass 939 F Supp 178 (EDNY 1996) 14

Zaitsev v State Farm Fire amp Cas Co No 05-CV -2098 (ILG) 2005 WL 3088326 (EDNY Nov 172005) 14

RULES

Fed R Civ P 8(a) 4

Fed R Civ P 20 6

Fed R Civ P 20(a) 5

Fed R Civ P 20(a)(I) 5

Fed R Civ P 21 14568 15

STATUTES

28 USC sect 1332(d) 3

28 USC sectsect 1367 1441 1446 and 1453 3

28 USC sect 1391(b)(2) 9

28 USC sect 1404(a) passim

Cal Bus amp Prof Code sect 17200 et seq 16

11l

NY Gen Bus Law sect 349 3 16

IV

Defendants OneWest Bank FSB (OneWest) and PNC Bank National Association

(PNC Bank) collectively Defendants respectfully submit this memorandum of law in

support of their motion to sever the action pursuant to Fed R Civ P 21 for improper joinder or

in the alternative to transfer venue to the Central District of California pursuant to 28 USc

sect 1404(a)

I PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This case involves approximately 838 separately named and unrelated Plaintiffs filing an

action against Defendants and approximately 1806 other financial institution and trust

defendants for vague allegations of wrongful foreclosures and servicing of loans This action

was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York to the Eastern District of New

York and Defendants now move to sever this action because Plaintiffs improperly joined a total

of over 2500 parties in an action involving a multitude of unrelated transactions and occurrences

in different states All of Plaintiffs claims arise from different transactions loans and

foreclosures with different defendants and therefore none of the questions of law or fact are

common to all 838 Plaintiffs This is in short an attempt by Plaintiffs counsel to circumvent

the rules and save on filing fees by misjoining 838 different cases into one action

This is just one of numerous mass action lawsuits that have been filed throughout the

United States over the last three and a half years Like the other mass joinder actions the various

Plaintiffs claims are unrelated as they obtained different types of loans from different lenders at

different times and in different states Courts have repeatedly rejected the joining of unrelated

borrowers in a lawsuit dismissing all but the lead plaintiff and requiring the other borrowers to

file individual lawsuits Accordingly as in the numerous similar cases that have been severed

across the country pursuant to Fed R Civ P 21 the 838 Plaintiffs here should all be dismissed

except for the first named Plaintiff

1

Should the Court not sever the Plaintiffs and instead allow all 838 Plaintiffs cases to

proceed then pursuant to 28 USC sect 1404(a) the Court should transfer this action to a more

appropriate venue the Central District of California which would be more convenient for the

parties and witnesses Indeed 735 of Plaintiffs reside in California along with a majority of

the defendants Only 23 of Plaintiffs meanwhile reside in New York A balance of factors

relevant to convenience and the interests of justice overwhelmingly favor transfer to the Central

District of California First and foremost not only do almost three quarters of Plaintiffs reside in

California but the locus of most of the operative events also occurred in California where the

real property at issue is located where the mortgages and deeds were executed and locally

recorded and where the foreclosures are pending Accordingly the majority of evidence and

sources of proof are also located in California including documents and witnesses who may

need to be deposed Maintaining this action in New York where this Court has yet to invest

significant resources and where a fraction of the parties are located and a fraction of the

operative events occurred would only cause unnecessary judicial inefficiency particularly where

a nearly-identical case was recently filed in the Central District of California

Defendants respectfully request that this motion be granted and this action be severed so

that only the first named Plaintiff s case proceeds and the remaining Plaintiffs cases are

dismissed without prejudice In the alternative if this case is not severed this action should be

transferred to the Central District of California

II STATEMENT OF FACTS

A Filing and Removal

On April 17 2012 approximately 838 separately named and unrelated Plaintiffs filed a

complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Kings Index Number

5008272012 (Complaint) styled as Abeel et al v Bank ofAmerica NA et al (the Abeel

2

Action) The Complaint alleges claims against defendants OneWest Bank FSB (One West)

and PNC Bank NA (PNC Bank) (collectively Defendants) along with approximately

1806 other financial institutions and trust defendants for (1) conversion (2) conspiracy to

commit conversion (3) intentional misrepresentation (third and fourth claims) (4) fraudulent

concealment (fifth and sixth claims) (5) promissory estoppel (6) negligent misrepresentation

(7) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (8) unjust enrichment and

(9) violations of the New York General Business Law sect 349 all relating to allegations of

wrongful servicing ofloans and foreclosures See generally CompL

On August 24 2012 co-defendant Bank of America Corporation filed a Notice of

Removal removing the Abeel Action to this Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act 23

USC sect 1332(d) (CAFA) and 28 USc sectsect 1367 1441 1446 and 1453 See Notice of

Removal The Notice of Filing of Removal was filed with the Supreme Court of the State of

New York County of Kings on August 272012 See Notice ofFiling ofRemoval

Of the 838 separately named Plaintiffs in the Complaint based on Plaintiffs own

allegations in the Complaint 616 (or 735) of the Plaintiffs reside in California while only 20

(or 23) of Plaintiffs reside in New York See Compl -r-r 4-841 Nine of the largest

defendants including OneWest Bank of America NA (and affiliates) Wells Fargo Bank NA

(and affiliates) Countrywide Financial Corporation (and numerous affiliates) Wachovia Bank

(now part of Wells Fargo) and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (which is the trustee of

most if not all of the 1658 named trust defendants) have or are alleged by Plaintiffs to have

3

headquarters or significant corporate offices in the Central District of California See Compl

~~ 847-25381

B Other Related Proceedings

The 838 separately named Plaintiffs in the Abeel Action are not the only group of

plaintiffs to make allegations of wrongful servicing of loans and foreclosures against these same

major banks On June 12012350 separately named Plaintiffs filed a nearly identical word-forshy

word complaint in the Central District of California against 661 separately named defendants

including many of the major banks sued in the Abeel Action styled as Emerita Ross et al v

Mortgage Electronic Systems Inc et al Case No CV l2-4830-0DW (Ex) (Ross) See Ross

CompI attached as Exhibit (Exh) A to the Declaration of Walead Esmail (Esmail Decl)

On June 26 2012 the Central District of California in the Ross Action ordered the

plaintiffs to show cause for why the court should not dismiss the complaint for various

infractions including inter alia violating the short and plain complaint standard under Fed R

Civ P 8(a) and for misjoinder of parties under Fed R Civ P 21 and threatened to sanction

plaintiffs attorney for presenting this lawsuit for an improper purpose under [Fed R Civ P]

11 (b) See Esmail Decl Exh B (Order to Show Cause in Ross Action)

1 Deutsche Bank National Trust Company is headquartered in Los Angeles California (httpinvestingbusinessweekcomiresearchistocksprivatesnapshotaspprivcapId=4292180) Defendant OneWest is headquartered in Pasadena California (httpswvwowbcomContactshyUs) Bank of America NA has corporate offices in Brea and Calabasas California (httpstartcorteracomicompanyresearchlk3m40vI7jbank-of-america-na httpwwwmemphisdailynewscomJeditorial ArticleEmaiLaspxid=42159) Countrywide Financial Corporation (now part of Bank of America) was headquartered in Calabasas California (httpwvWtheacomcomnews2008-05-011communityO 14html httpinvestingbusinessweekcomlresearchlstocksfprivatesnapshotaspprivcapld=264656) W lls Fargo has corporate offices in Los Angeles California (httpsllwvwweUsfargocomhelpaddress) Wachovia Bank is now part of Wells Fargo (httpswWwweUsfargocomiaboutcorporatewachovia)

4

On July 30 2012 the Central District of California dismissed the Ross Action without

prejudice for lack of prosecution See Esmail Decl Exh C (Order of Dismissal in Ross

Action)

III ARGUMENT

A TIDS CASE SHOULD BE SEVERED PURSUANT TO FED R CIV P 21

Plaintiffs have improperly joined 838 named Plaintiffs in this action against 1808

defendants in direct violation of the Federal Rules Fed R Civ P 20(a)(l) sets forth the

requirements for permissive joinder ofplaintiffs

Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if

(A) they assert any right to relief jointly severally or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences and

(B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action

Fed R Civ P 20(a)(I)

[T]he remedy for improper joinder is severance Sony Music Entertainment Inc v

Does 1-40 326 F Supp 2d 556 567 (SDNY 2004) (citing Fed R Civ P 21) In addition

[d]istrict courts have broad discretion to decide whether joinder is appropriate even when the

requirements of Rule 20(a) have been met Ghaly v Us Dept ofAgriculture 228 F Supp 2d

283 292 (SDNY 2002) Factors relevant to a determination of whether a court should sever

the plaintiffs claims include (1) whether the claims arise out of the same transaction or

occurrence (2) whether the claims present some common questions of law or fact (3) whether

settlement of the claims or judicial economy would be facilitated (4) whether prejudice would

be avoided if severance were granted and (5) whether different witnesses and documentary

proof are required for the separate claims Morris v Northrop Grumman Corp 37 F Supp 2d

5

556 580 (EDNY 1999) see also In re Zyprexa Products Liability Litig MDL 1596 04-CVshy

16152004 WL 2812095 at 5-6 (EDNY Dec 3 2004) (Weinstein J) (granting a motion to

sever where the claims arose out of separate transactional issues the claims implicated different

questions of law there was no prejudice to plaintiffs and the claims involved different sets of

witnesses evidence and proof)

Here the 838 Plaintiffsclaims against 1808 defendants plainly do not arise out of the

same transaction or occurrence Although all of Plaintiffs claims are vaguely related to

mortgage foreclosures almost all if not all of them arise from completely different transactions

loans and foreclosures in multiple states The Complaint makes no suggestion that any of

Plaintiffs are related and so it can be presumed that almost all if not all of Plaintiffs claims

concern only that particular Plaintiff and involve entirely individual allegations against different

bank defendants Indeed the Complaint does not even identify which of the 1808 defendants

each ofthe 838 Plaintiffs have claims against

Moreover because the facts and issues are individual to each Plaintiff Plaintiffs also

cannot show that there are any questions of law or fact that will arise in this action that are

common to all Plaintiffs Rather the Court will be asked to use its limited resources to

essentially adjudicate each of the 838 individual Plaintiffs claims against one or more

defendants pursuant to that Plaintiffs particular set of facts and issues requiring different

witnesses and documentary proof for each Plaintiff This is the antithesis of judicial economy

and the very circumstance Fed R Civ P 20 amp 21 are crafted to prohibit

This action is only one of numerous mass action lawsuits that have been filed throughout

the United States over the last three and a half years and courts have repeatedly rejected the

joining of unrelated borrowers in a lawsuit based on Fed R Civ P 20 dismissing all but the

6

lead plaintiff and requiring the other borrowers to file individual lawsuits See eg Lifesavers

Concepts Assn v Bank of Am 112-cv-00923-TWT Doc 2 (ND Ga Apr 2 2012)

(dismissing all but first plaintiff) Murillo et al v Bank ofAm NA et al 2 12-cv-04507-DDP

Doc 9 at 2 nl (CD Cal June 5 2012) (same) Sugay et al v Wells Fargo Bank NA et al

22012-cv-04712-JFW Doc 18 (CD Cal July 122012) (same) Gutierrez et al v US Bank

NA et al CV 12-4713-GHK Doc 21 (CD CaL July 23 2012) (same) Laverde et al v Bank

of New York ~Mellon et al CV 12-4567-JFW Doc 25 (CD Cal Aug 17 2012) (same)

Richards et al v Deutsche Bank et al CV 12-4786-DSF Doc 40 (CD Cal Aug 312012)

(same) Gonzalez et al v Bank ofAmerica NA 12-1007-SC Doc 24 (ND CaL Aug 24

2012) (same)

As in those cases this purported mass action is plainly ripe for severance that will serve

the ends ofjustice and further the prompt and efficient disposition of litigation In re Zyprexa

Products Liability Litig 2004 WL 2812095 at 6 (citations and internal quotations omitted)

As in these other cases here too there is no logical relationship between Plaintiffs and their

various claims and thus as a matter of law Plaintiffs are misjoined in this action See Robert v

Dept of Justice No 05-CV-2543NGGETB 2005 WL 3371480 at 10 (EDNY Dec 12

2005) (granting defendants motion to sever a plaintiff) see also Al McZeal et al v JP Morgarz

Chase Bank NA et al CV 11-7739 PA (PJWx) In Chambers - Court Order dated Dec 21

2011 attached as Exh D to Esmail Dec (ordering the severance of 21 named plaintiffs who

brought mortgage foreclosure claims against various banking institutions dropping all but the

first named plaintiff and allowing the other named plaintiffs to file individual claims in separate

actions)

7

Accordingly pursuant to Fed R Civ P 21 the 838 Plaintiffs here should all be

dismissed except for the first named Plaintiff The remaining Plaintiffs may if they choose file

their individual claims in separate actions in the proper venues

B IN THE ALTERNATIVE THIS CASE SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Should the Court not grant Defendants motion to sever and instead allow this action to

continue with all 838 Plaintiffs Defendants respectfully request that in the alternative the Court

transfer this action to the Central District of California where venue is more proper In pertinent

part 28 USC sect 1404(a) provides that For the convenience of parties and witnesses in the

interest of justice a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division

where it might have been brought 28 USC sect 1404(a) accord Delta Air Lines Inc v Assn

of Flight Attendants CWA 720 F Supp 2d 213 217 (EDNY 2010) A district court has

broad discretion to transfer cases pursuant to sect 1404(a) to prevent waste of time energy and

money and to protect litigants witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and

expense us Fid amp Guar Co v Republic Drug Co 800 F Supp 1076 1079 (EDNY

1992) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) In evaluating a motion to transfer

the court conducts a two-part inquiry (i) determining whether the case could have been brought

in the proposed district and (ii) evaluating whether transfer is warranted using certain factors

relating to the convenience of transfer and the interests of justice See Delta Air Lines 720 F

Supp 2d at 217 see also Fox News Network LLc v Time Warner Inc No 96-CV-4963

1997 WL 271723 3-4 (EDNY May 16 1997) (Weinstein J) (granting transfer of case to

location where most of the facts occurred and where most of the parties and witnesses are and

where the court in that district already examined the same events in a related case) In this case

8

the Central District of California is an appropriate venue and the factors relevant to convenience

and the interests ofjustice overwhelmingly favor transfer to that court

1 Venue Is Proper in the Central District of California Because Nearly Three Quarters of the Plaintiffs Reside in California

The threshold consideration in a Section 1404(a) motion is whether the action could have

been brought in the proposed transferee forum Id see also In re Hanger Orthopedic Grp Inc

Sec Litig 418 F Supp 2d 164 168 n3 (EDNY 2006) (granting motion to transfer and noting

that jurisdiction was proper in the proposed forum)

Venue in the Central District of California is appropriate under 28 USC sect 1391(b)(2)

which allows a civil action to be brought in the judicial district in which a substantial part of th~

events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or a substantial part of property that is the

subject of the action is situated Here 735 of the Plaintiffs reside in California and bring this

action claiming wrongful servicing of loans and foreclosures on real property located in

California Therefore the substantial majority of the real property at issue are located in

California and the substantial majority of foreclosure actions which gave rise to the claims in the

Complaint are pending in California Thus venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(2)

2 The Balance of Convenience and the Interests of Justice Weigh in Favor of Transfer to the Central District of California

Having met the threshold requirement under Section 1404(a) the Court must next

evaluate whether transfer is warranted by considering multiple factors relating to the

convenience of transfer and the interests ofjustice See Delta Air Lines 720 F Supp 2d at 217

Specifically the factors courts consider in determining whether the balance of convenience and

the interests of justice favor transfer are (1) the convenience of the parties (2) the convenience

of witnesses (3) the location of relevant documents and other physical evidence (4) the locus of

operative facts (5) the availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses

9

(6) plaintiffs choice of forum (7) the relative means of the parties (8) the forums familiarity

with governing law and (9) judicial economy and the interests of justice Id see also DH

Blair amp Co Inc v Gottdiener 462 F3d 95 106-07 (2d Cir 2006) In re Cuyahoga Equip

Corp 980 F 2d 11 0 117 (2d Cir 1992)

Here the factors weigh strongly in favor of transfer to the Central District of California

a The Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses the Availability of Process to Compel the Attendance of Unwilling Witnesses the Locus of Operative Facts the Location of Relevant Evidence and Judicial Economy and the Interests of Justice All Favor Transferring This Case to the Central District of California

With an overwhelming majority of the Plaintiffs residing in California - based on

Plaintiffs own Complaint (see Compl ~~ 4-841 showing that 735 of Plaintiffs reside in

California) and where the overwhelming majority of the real property at issue and the relevant

witnesses evidence and sources of proof are located the convenience to the parties and trilll

efficiently plainly weigh[s] in favor of transfer See Sebrow v Zucker Goldberg amp Ackerman

No 1O-CV-4767(NGG) 2012 WL 911552 at 4 (EDNY Mar 16 2012) (granting motion to

transfer) see also Fox News Network 1997 WL 271723 at 3-4 (granting motion to transfer

case where it would prevent a waste of time energy and money and would also protect the

parties witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense)

L The Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses and the Availability ofProcess to Compel the Attendance ofUnwilling Witnesses

The convenience of parties and witnesses is considered the essential criteria under the

venue statute and the most significant factor Cento Group SPA v OroAmerica Inc

822F Supp 1058 1060 (SDNY 1993) (quoting First City Fed Savings Bankv Register

677 F SUpp 236 237 (SDNY 1988) see also Hernandez v Graebel Van Lines 761 F SUpp

983988 (EDNY 1991) (same)

10

Here the convenience of the parties and witnesses points plainly to the Central District of

California as the most appropriate and practical venue for this action Almost three quarters of

the claims involved in this action arise from allegations of wrongful servicing of loans for or

foreclosures of real property located in California Further almost three quarters of Plaintiffs

reside in California for purposes of personal jurisdiction Conversely only 23 of Plaintiffs

reside in New York or involve foreclosures of real property or loans on real property in New

York Furthermore nine of the major bank defendants (and their numerous affiliates) including

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company which is the trustee of most if not all of the 1658

named trust defendants have or are alleged by Plaintiffs to have corporate offices in the Central

District of California Thus a substantial majority of the defendants in this case like the

Plaintiffs reside in California It is therefore unquestionable that the most convenient

location for the parties to litigate this action is the Central District of California militating in

favor of transfer See Hernandez 761 F Supp at 991-92 see also Fox News Network 1997 WL

271723 at 3-4 (granting motion to transfer case to where a majority of parties and witnesses

reside or work)

Moreover the majority of the key witnesses in this case will likely be the Plaintiffs

themselves as well as the relevant employees and agents of the defendants who maintain the

relevant records the majority of whom reside in California or are employed at the defendants

Central District of California offices See Fox News Network 1997 WL 271723 at 3 (granting

motion to transfer case where witnesses who may be called on behalf of [parties] are likely to

work) These witnesses may offer key testimony regarding inter alia payments made and

received communications between the parties the facts surrounding the defaults and foreclosure

proceedings and the nature and condition of the real property at issue Moreover deposing or

11

compelling the attendance ofnonparty witnesses for trial (including nonparty witnesses who may

testifY in support of Plaintiffs claims or nonparty appraisers and local officials etc) - many cf

whom may be in California where the majority of the relevant documents were drafted and the

majority of the real property at issue is located will be unnecessarily difficult in New York

particularly where California witnesses will be asked to travel across the country to appear here

Indeed not only would it be inconvenient for [unwilling] witnesses to come to New York but

[the parties] could not compel their appearance if they chose not to come voluntarily See New

Son Yeng Produce LLC v AampS Produce Inc No 07-CV-4292 (KAM) 2009 WL 2568566 at

4 (EDNY Aug 192009)

11 The Locus of Operative Facts and the Location ofEvidence

Similarly with a fraction of the alleged wrongful acts originating in New York and an

overwhelming number of the alleged wrongful acts originating in California that state is the

primary locus of operative facts See id at 4-5 (transferring the case to the Central District of

California because there is a local interest in having this controversy decided in California

where almost all of the operative events occurred) Here the operative events involve the

execution transfer and recording ofmortgage documents the servicing of loans and foreclosure

proceedings Because almost three quarters ofPlaintiffs reside in California where real property

at issue is located where the mortgage documents were executed and recorded where the loans

were serviced and where the foreclosure proceedings are currently pending California is where

almost all of the operative events occurred and California more than any other state has the

primary interest in adjudicating this largely local dispute See id

Accordingly the substantial majority of the evidence and sources of proof in this case are

also located in California including the real property at issue and the locally recorded mortgages

deeds and transfers The defendants including the nine major financial institutions and

12


named trust defendants maintain or are alleged by Plaintiffs to maintain corporate offices in the

Central District of California and maintain the relevant documents including original copies of

mortgages deeds and transfers and mortgage payment schedules and foreclosure documents in

the state where the corresponding real property is located

Here with 735 of Plaintiffs residing in California the vast majority of key and

physical evidence and sources of proof related to the real property at issue including the

Plaintiffs themselves and other witnesses defendants may seek to depose are located in

California Thus obtaining the required documents and developing a factual record may be

done more efficiently in California and thus transfer is strongly favored See Sebrow 2012 WL

911552 at 4 (finding that it would be more efficient to transfer the action to New Jersey where

the underlying real estate transaction and the foreclosure proceeding both occurred) see also Fox

News Network 1997 WL 271723 at 3-4

iii Trial Efficiency Judicial Economy and the Interests of Justice

Balancing the material circumstances of this case and the factors as weighed above trial

efficiency judicial economy and the interests ofjustice plainly favor adjudicating this action in

California See id see also Coker v Bank of Am 984 F Supp 757 765 (SDNY 1997)

(citing Kolko v Holiday Inns Inc 672 F Supp 713 716 (SDNY 1987) (the public interest

requires that localized controversies [be] decided at home)) The facts demonstrate that this

action has very little connection with New York and an overwhelming connection to California

It is undisputable that the Central District of California can more efficiently adjudicate this

matter where at least 735 of the relevant Plaintiffs and a majority of defendants witnesses

physical evidence and documents are located As one court put the center of gravity of this

action plainly lies in California See Coker 984 F Supp at 767 (citations omitted)

13

Where litigation has not progressed so much in the Eastern District of New York that

transfer at this juncture would constitute a waste of this courts resources so far spent on the

case the interests of justice and the local interest in having this controversy decided in

California outweighs maintaining this action here See New Son Yeng Produce 2009 WL

2568566 at 5 see also Hernandez 761 F Supp at 991-92 (holding that it is more practical

and thus in the interest of justice to transfer a case to the state that is most convenient for the

parties and witnesses and where the operative facts occurred)

h Given the Strong Nexus with California Plaintiffs Choice of Forum the Forums Familiarity with Governing Law and the Relative Means ofthe Parties Should Be Afforded Little if Any Weight

1 Plaintiffs Choice ofForum Is Entitled to Little Weight

Plaintiffs choice of forum is entitled to virtually no weight where as here there is little

connection between the chosen forum and the facts or issues of the case see Wine ll1arkets Intl

Inc v Bass 939 F Supp 178 179 (BDNY 1996) and because deference to a plaintiffs

chosen forum in class actions is markedly diminishe[ d] where numerous diverse plaintiffs may

have different and competing choice forums Wald v Bank of Am Corp No ll-CV-5957

(ENV)(JO) 2012 WL 1388198 at 3-4 (EDNY Apr 192012) (granting motion to transfer)

First where the transactions or facts giving rise to the action have no material relation or

significant connection to the plaintiffs chosen forum then the plaintiffs choice is not accorded

the same great weight and in fact is given reduced significance us Fid amp Guar Co 800

F Supp at 1082 (citation omitted) see also Zaitsev v State Farm Fire amp Cas Co No 05-CVshy

2098 (lLG) 2005 WL 3088326 at 3 (BDNY Nov 17 2005) (much less deference should

be given to [a plaintiff s choice of forums] when the chosen forum has no other nexus to the facts

underlying the action) (granting motion to transfer)

14

Moreover although Plaintiffs did not bring this action as a putative class action with 838

separately named Plaintiffs and 1808 defendants were this action to continue Plaintiffs risk

having parties dropped or severed for misjoinder under Fed R Civ P 21 as in the Ross Action

See Esmail Decl Exh B (Order to Show Cause in Ross Action) In either case [t]he weight

given plaintiff[s] choice of forum is considerably weakened [where] the plaintiff[s] [are] only

one of many potential plaintiffs all of whom could with equal show of right go into their many

home courts Strauss v W Highland Capital Inc No 00-Civ-01184 (GEL) 2000 WI

1505957 at 2 (SDNY Oct 62000)

Here 735 of Plaintiffs reside in California yet this action was brought in New York

where only 23 ofPlaintiffs reside Accordingly 735 ofthe substantive events and activities

giving rise to Plaintiffs claims originated and in many cases are ongoing in California and

concern real property in California Other than the 23 of Plaintiffs who reside in New York

there exists essentially no material relationship or significant connection between this case and

New York other than that Plaintiffs attorney presumably chose to file it here for his own

convenience because his office is in New York This of course deserves no weight See Ocean

Walk Mall LLC v Kornitzer No 01 CIV 213 (DLC) 2001 WL 640847 at 4 (SDNY June

11 2011) (Inconveniences stemming from the plaintiffs need to retain counsel in the transferee

district is oflittle ifany weight on a motion to transfer) (citations omitted)

Where all the potential Plaintiffs have an equal show of right [to] go into their many

home courts California where 735 ofPlaintiffs reside represents the most equitable location

for this action to proceed See Strauss 2000 WL 1505957 at 2 Thus the relative importance

of Plaintiffs choice of forum is greatly ifnot entirely diminished

11 The Forums Familiarity with Governing Law

15

Likewise the forums familiarity with governing law is given little if any weight

Prudential Sec Inc v Norcom Development Inc No 97 Civ 6308(DC) 1998 WL 397889 at

6 (SDNY July 16 1998) (the governing law factor is to be accorded little weight on a

motion to transfer venue because federal courts are deemed capable of applying the substantive

law ofother states) see also Sebrow 2012 WL 911552 at 4

Here ten of the eleven claims brought by Plaintiffs are common law claims which both

New York and California district courts are equally capable of interpreting and applying Th~

final claim for violation of New York General Business Law sect 349 alleges deceptive acts and

practices a common state statute that is analogous to Californias Business and Professions

Code sect 17200 et seq which prohibits any unlawful unfair or fraudulent business act or practice

and unfair deceptive untrue or misleading advertising See Fink v Time Warner Cable 810 F

Supp 2d 633646-47 (SDNY 2011) (because plaintiffs claims under New York GBL sect 349

failed plaintiffs attempt to state claims under the analogous California [Business and

Professions Code sect 17200 et seq] statute must also fail)

There is in short nothing extraordinary or unique about Plaintiffs claims and the

Central District of California is as capable of interpreting and applying the governing law as is a

New York district court and indeed Central District of California courts often do interpret and

apply New York General Business Law sect 349 See eg Guido v L Oreal USA Inc Nos CVshy

11-1067 CAS (lCx) CV 11-5465 CAS (JCx) 2012 WL 1616912 (CD Cal May 7 2012)

(interpreting and applying New York General Business Law sect 349) In re WellPoint Inc Out-ojshy

Network UCR Rates Litig No MDL 09-2074 PSG (FFMx) 2011 WL 3555610 (CD Cal Aug

112011) (same) Taif v BSH Home Appliances Corp No SACV 10-711 DOC (ANx) 2011

WL 1832941 (CD Cal May 122011) (same)

16

111 The Relative Means of the Parties Do Not Favor Plaintiffs Choice ofForum

The relative means of the parties also do not favor maintaining this action in New York

First and foremost Plaintiffs have presented no evidence showing their lack of means and that

they would be financially prejudiced by having to litigate in California and thus this factor adds

nothing to [the] analysis See Quan v Computer Scis Corp Nos 06-CV-3927 (CBA) (JO)

06-CV-5100 (CBA) (10) 2008 WL 89679 at 7 (EDNY Jan 7 2008) In addition to the

extent Plaintiffs have less means than defendants this factor would favor transferring the case to

the Central District ofCalifornia where 735 of the Plaintiffs reside Indeed by filing this case

in New York where only 23 of Plaintiffs reside Plaintiffs counsel risks burdening 735 of

his clients and their witnesses with traveling across the country or delivering documents and

evidence across the country In short if Plaintiffs have means then this factor does not favor

Plaintiffs choice of forum and if Plaintiffs lack means then this factor still does not favor

Plaintiffs choice of forum because it would be less expensive for the substantial majority of

Plaintiffs to litigate this action in California where most of them reside

c The Related Litigation Filed in the Central District of California Also Favors Transferring This Action to the Central District of California

As Judge Vitaliano observed in Delta Air Lines even if the other transfer factors were ill

equipoise which Defendants submit they plainly are not here the pendency of related

litigation in the Central District of California is decisive in favor of transfer Delta Air Lines

720 F Supp 2d at 219 see also Fox News Network 1997 WL 271723 at 3 (granting motion to

transfer case to where a related case had been heard for reasons of judicial efficiency) The

Ross Action which was recently filed in the Central District of California on June 26 2012

alleged nearly identical claims and facts against many of the same defendants as in this action

Accordingly trial efficiency and the interests of justice weigh heavily in favor of transferring

17

this case to the Central District of California thereby conserving judicial resources and avoiding

the risk of overlapping or inconsistent results

The existence of a related action in the transferee district is a strong factor to be weighed

with regard to judicial economy and such transfer saves judicial resources and avoids the

possibility of inconsistent results Rabbi Jacob Joseph Sch V Province of ll1endoza 342 F

Supp 2d 124 130 (EDNY 2004) (transferring case from EDNY to SDNY pursuant to

sect 1404(a) because the interests of justice would be served by such a transfer) see also Delta Air

Lines 720 F Supp 2d at 219 (transferring case to jurisdiction where related case was pending

noting the strong policy favoring the litigation of related claims in the same tribunal (citation

omitted)) The case in the transferee district need only be related not identical Columbia

Pictures Indus Inc v Fung 447 F Supp 2d 306 309-10 (SDNY 2006) (citation omitted) see

also Delta Air Lines 720 F Supp 2d at 219 n4 see also Wald 2012 WL 1388198 at 5

(transferring case with similar allegations and some of the same defendants)

Although the Ross Action was recently dismissed the dismissal was without prejudice

leaving the plaintiffs in the Ross Action the opportunity to refile in the Central District of

California See Esmail Decl Exh C (Order of Dismissal in Ross Action) Indeed in Delta Air

Lines the court transferred the action even though a motion to dismiss the related case was

pending See Delta Air Lines 720 F Supp 2d at 219 Whether the case has been dismissed or

not a judges familiarity with much of the background events [in a related case] will further a

speedy efficient and just resolution of the current action on the merits Fox News Network

1997 WL 271723 at 3

Therefore in addition to the balance of factors above transfer to the Central District of

California is also appropriate because the nearly-identical Ross Action was filed in the Central

18

District of California where Judge Wright has already had an opportunity to review a nearly-

identical complaint and where the plaintiffs could refile their complaint and risk unnecessarily

wasting judicial resources and the possibility of inconsistent results against the same defendants

in two different states In conjunction with the factors above that overwhelmingly favor a

transfer to the Central District of California the Ross Action only strengthens the argument that

in the interests of justice the most appropriate venue for this case to be heard is the Central

District of California

IV CONCLUSION

F or all the foregoing reasons Defendants respectfully request that all but the first named

Plaintiff be severed and dismissed from this action In the alternative Defendants respectfully

request that the Court transfer this action to the Central District of California because the

majority of factors including the most crucial factors weigh heavily in favor of transfer and

grant any other reliefthat the Court deems just and proper


lsi Richard E Gottlieb Richard E Gottlieb DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 10 South Wacker Drive Suite 2300 Chicago Illinois 60606 Phone (312) 876-1700 Fax (312) 627-2302 rgottlieb(a)dykemacom


19


lsi Richard E Gottlieb Richard Gottlieb DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 10 South Wacker Drive Suite 2300 Chicago Illinois 60606 Phone (312) 876-1700 Fax (312) 627-2302 rgottliebdvkemacom


2


---------------------------------------------------------- )(

DEBORAH ABEEL et al

Plaintiffs

-against-


Defendants

---------------------------------------------------------- )(

October 42012




L

TABLE OF CONTENTS






III ARGUMENT 5










1





IV CONCLUSION 19

11


CASES
















1

















11










RULES

Fed R Civ P 8(a) 4

Fed R Civ P 20 6

Fed R Civ P 20(a) 5


Fed R Civ P 21 14568 15

STATUTES

28 USC sect 1332(d) 3

28 USC sectsect 1367 1441 1446 and 1453 3

28 USC sect 1391(b)(2) 9



11l


IV





sect 1404(a)




















1

























2





















3


~~ 847-25381
















4



Action)

III ARGUMENT



















5
























6










2012) (same)












actions)

7























8
























9




Corp 980 F 2d 11 0 117 (2d Cir 1992)

















983988 (EDNY 1991) (same)

10















reside or work)









11









4 (EDNY Aug 192009)
















12

























13























14








1505957 at 2 (SDNY Oct 62000)
















15























WL 1832941 (CD Cal May 122011) (same)

16
























17





















1997 WL 271723 at 3



18








IV CONCLUSION









19


---------------------------------------------------------- )(

DEBORAH ABEEL et al

Plaintiffs

-against-


Defendants

---------------------------------------------------------- )(

October 42012




L

TABLE OF CONTENTS






III ARGUMENT 5










1





IV CONCLUSION 19

11


CASES
















1

















11










RULES

Fed R Civ P 8(a) 4

Fed R Civ P 20 6

Fed R Civ P 20(a) 5


Fed R Civ P 21 14568 15

STATUTES

28 USC sect 1332(d) 3

28 USC sectsect 1367 1441 1446 and 1453 3

28 USC sect 1391(b)(2) 9



11l


IV





sect 1404(a)




















1

























2





















3


~~ 847-25381
















4



Action)

III ARGUMENT



















5
























6










2012) (same)












actions)

7























8
























9




Corp 980 F 2d 11 0 117 (2d Cir 1992)

















983988 (EDNY 1991) (same)

10















reside or work)









11









4 (EDNY Aug 192009)
















12

























13























14








1505957 at 2 (SDNY Oct 62000)
















15























WL 1832941 (CD Cal May 122011) (same)

16
























17





















1997 WL 271723 at 3



18








IV CONCLUSION









19

L

TABLE OF CONTENTS






III ARGUMENT 5










1





IV CONCLUSION 19

11


CASES
















1

















11










RULES

Fed R Civ P 8(a) 4

Fed R Civ P 20 6

Fed R Civ P 20(a) 5


Fed R Civ P 21 14568 15

STATUTES

28 USC sect 1332(d) 3

28 USC sectsect 1367 1441 1446 and 1453 3

28 USC sect 1391(b)(2) 9



11l


IV





sect 1404(a)




















1

























2





















3


~~ 847-25381
















4



Action)

III ARGUMENT



















5
























6










2012) (same)












actions)

7























8
























9




Corp 980 F 2d 11 0 117 (2d Cir 1992)

















983988 (EDNY 1991) (same)

10















reside or work)









11









4 (EDNY Aug 192009)
















12

























13























14








1505957 at 2 (SDNY Oct 62000)
















15























WL 1832941 (CD Cal May 122011) (same)

16
























17





















1997 WL 271723 at 3



18








IV CONCLUSION









19





IV CONCLUSION 19

11


CASES
















1

















11










RULES

Fed R Civ P 8(a) 4

Fed R Civ P 20 6

Fed R Civ P 20(a) 5


Fed R Civ P 21 14568 15

STATUTES

28 USC sect 1332(d) 3

28 USC sectsect 1367 1441 1446 and 1453 3

28 USC sect 1391(b)(2) 9



11l


IV





sect 1404(a)




















1

























2





















3


~~ 847-25381
















4



Action)

III ARGUMENT



















5
























6










2012) (same)












actions)

7























8
























9




Corp 980 F 2d 11 0 117 (2d Cir 1992)

















983988 (EDNY 1991) (same)

10















reside or work)









11









4 (EDNY Aug 192009)
















12

























13























14








1505957 at 2 (SDNY Oct 62000)
















15























WL 1832941 (CD Cal May 122011) (same)

16
























17





















1997 WL 271723 at 3



18








IV CONCLUSION









19


CASES
















1

















11










RULES

Fed R Civ P 8(a) 4

Fed R Civ P 20 6

Fed R Civ P 20(a) 5


Fed R Civ P 21 14568 15

STATUTES

28 USC sect 1332(d) 3

28 USC sectsect 1367 1441 1446 and 1453 3

28 USC sect 1391(b)(2) 9



11l


IV





sect 1404(a)




















1

























2





















3


~~ 847-25381
















4



Action)

III ARGUMENT



















5
























6










2012) (same)












actions)

7























8
























9




Corp 980 F 2d 11 0 117 (2d Cir 1992)

















983988 (EDNY 1991) (same)

10















reside or work)









11









4 (EDNY Aug 192009)
















12

























13























14








1505957 at 2 (SDNY Oct 62000)
















15























WL 1832941 (CD Cal May 122011) (same)

16
























17





















1997 WL 271723 at 3



18








IV CONCLUSION









19

















11










RULES

Fed R Civ P 8(a) 4

Fed R Civ P 20 6

Fed R Civ P 20(a) 5


Fed R Civ P 21 14568 15

STATUTES

28 USC sect 1332(d) 3

28 USC sectsect 1367 1441 1446 and 1453 3

28 USC sect 1391(b)(2) 9



11l


IV





sect 1404(a)




















1

























2





















3


~~ 847-25381
















4



Action)

III ARGUMENT



















5
























6










2012) (same)












actions)

7























8
























9




Corp 980 F 2d 11 0 117 (2d Cir 1992)

















983988 (EDNY 1991) (same)

10















reside or work)









11









4 (EDNY Aug 192009)
















12

























13























14








1505957 at 2 (SDNY Oct 62000)
















15























WL 1832941 (CD Cal May 122011) (same)

16
























17





















1997 WL 271723 at 3



18








IV CONCLUSION









19










RULES

Fed R Civ P 8(a) 4

Fed R Civ P 20 6

Fed R Civ P 20(a) 5


Fed R Civ P 21 14568 15

STATUTES

28 USC sect 1332(d) 3

28 USC sectsect 1367 1441 1446 and 1453 3

28 USC sect 1391(b)(2) 9



11l


IV





sect 1404(a)




















1

























2





















3


~~ 847-25381
















4



Action)

III ARGUMENT



















5
























6










2012) (same)












actions)

7























8
























9




Corp 980 F 2d 11 0 117 (2d Cir 1992)

















983988 (EDNY 1991) (same)

10















reside or work)









11









4 (EDNY Aug 192009)
















12

























13























14








1505957 at 2 (SDNY Oct 62000)
















15























WL 1832941 (CD Cal May 122011) (same)

16
























17





















1997 WL 271723 at 3



18








IV CONCLUSION









19


IV





sect 1404(a)




















1

























2





















3


~~ 847-25381
















4



Action)

III ARGUMENT



















5
























6










2012) (same)












actions)

7























8
























9




Corp 980 F 2d 11 0 117 (2d Cir 1992)

















983988 (EDNY 1991) (same)

10















reside or work)









11









4 (EDNY Aug 192009)
















12

























13























14








1505957 at 2 (SDNY Oct 62000)
















15























WL 1832941 (CD Cal May 122011) (same)

16
























17





















1997 WL 271723 at 3



18








IV CONCLUSION









19





sect 1404(a)




















1

























2





















3


~~ 847-25381
















4



Action)

III ARGUMENT



















5
























6










2012) (same)












actions)

7























8
























9




Corp 980 F 2d 11 0 117 (2d Cir 1992)

















983988 (EDNY 1991) (same)

10















reside or work)









11









4 (EDNY Aug 192009)
















12

























13























14








1505957 at 2 (SDNY Oct 62000)
















15























WL 1832941 (CD Cal May 122011) (same)

16
























17





















1997 WL 271723 at 3



18








IV CONCLUSION









19

























2





















3


~~ 847-25381
















4



Action)

III ARGUMENT



















5
























6










2012) (same)












actions)

7























8
























9




Corp 980 F 2d 11 0 117 (2d Cir 1992)

















983988 (EDNY 1991) (same)

10















reside or work)









11









4 (EDNY Aug 192009)
















12

























13























14








1505957 at 2 (SDNY Oct 62000)
















15























WL 1832941 (CD Cal May 122011) (same)

16
























17





















1997 WL 271723 at 3



18








IV CONCLUSION









19





















3


~~ 847-25381
















4



Action)

III ARGUMENT



















5
























6










2012) (same)












actions)

7























8
























9




Corp 980 F 2d 11 0 117 (2d Cir 1992)

















983988 (EDNY 1991) (same)

10















reside or work)









11









4 (EDNY Aug 192009)
















12

























13























14








1505957 at 2 (SDNY Oct 62000)
















15























WL 1832941 (CD Cal May 122011) (same)

16
























17





















1997 WL 271723 at 3



18








IV CONCLUSION









19


~~ 847-25381
















4



Action)

III ARGUMENT



















5
























6










2012) (same)












actions)

7























8
























9




Corp 980 F 2d 11 0 117 (2d Cir 1992)

















983988 (EDNY 1991) (same)

10















reside or work)









11









4 (EDNY Aug 192009)
















12

























13























14








1505957 at 2 (SDNY Oct 62000)
















15























WL 1832941 (CD Cal May 122011) (same)

16
























17





















1997 WL 271723 at 3



18








IV CONCLUSION









19



Action)

III ARGUMENT



















5
























6










2012) (same)












actions)

7























8
























9




Corp 980 F 2d 11 0 117 (2d Cir 1992)

















983988 (EDNY 1991) (same)

10















reside or work)









11









4 (EDNY Aug 192009)
















12

























13























14








1505957 at 2 (SDNY Oct 62000)
















15























WL 1832941 (CD Cal May 122011) (same)

16
























17





















1997 WL 271723 at 3



18








IV CONCLUSION









19
























6










2012) (same)












actions)

7























8
























9




Corp 980 F 2d 11 0 117 (2d Cir 1992)

















983988 (EDNY 1991) (same)

10















reside or work)









11









4 (EDNY Aug 192009)
















12

























13























14








1505957 at 2 (SDNY Oct 62000)
















15























WL 1832941 (CD Cal May 122011) (same)

16
























17





















1997 WL 271723 at 3



18








IV CONCLUSION









19










2012) (same)












actions)

7























8
























9




Corp 980 F 2d 11 0 117 (2d Cir 1992)

















983988 (EDNY 1991) (same)

10















reside or work)









11









4 (EDNY Aug 192009)
















12

























13























14








1505957 at 2 (SDNY Oct 62000)
















15























WL 1832941 (CD Cal May 122011) (same)

16
























17





















1997 WL 271723 at 3



18








IV CONCLUSION









19























8
























9




Corp 980 F 2d 11 0 117 (2d Cir 1992)

















983988 (EDNY 1991) (same)

10















reside or work)









11









4 (EDNY Aug 192009)
















12

























13























14








1505957 at 2 (SDNY Oct 62000)
















15























WL 1832941 (CD Cal May 122011) (same)

16
























17





















1997 WL 271723 at 3



18








IV CONCLUSION









19
























9




Corp 980 F 2d 11 0 117 (2d Cir 1992)

















983988 (EDNY 1991) (same)

10















reside or work)









11









4 (EDNY Aug 192009)
















12

























13























14








1505957 at 2 (SDNY Oct 62000)
















15























WL 1832941 (CD Cal May 122011) (same)

16
























17





















1997 WL 271723 at 3



18








IV CONCLUSION









19




Corp 980 F 2d 11 0 117 (2d Cir 1992)

















983988 (EDNY 1991) (same)

10















reside or work)









11









4 (EDNY Aug 192009)
















12

























13























14








1505957 at 2 (SDNY Oct 62000)
















15























WL 1832941 (CD Cal May 122011) (same)

16
























17





















1997 WL 271723 at 3



18








IV CONCLUSION









19















reside or work)









11









4 (EDNY Aug 192009)
















12

























13























14








1505957 at 2 (SDNY Oct 62000)
















15























WL 1832941 (CD Cal May 122011) (same)

16
























17





















1997 WL 271723 at 3



18








IV CONCLUSION









19









4 (EDNY Aug 192009)
















12

























13























14








1505957 at 2 (SDNY Oct 62000)
















15























WL 1832941 (CD Cal May 122011) (same)

16
























17





















1997 WL 271723 at 3



18








IV CONCLUSION









19

























13























14








1505957 at 2 (SDNY Oct 62000)
















15























WL 1832941 (CD Cal May 122011) (same)

16
























17





















1997 WL 271723 at 3



18








IV CONCLUSION









19























14








1505957 at 2 (SDNY Oct 62000)
















15























WL 1832941 (CD Cal May 122011) (same)

16
























17





















1997 WL 271723 at 3



18








IV CONCLUSION









19








1505957 at 2 (SDNY Oct 62000)
















15























WL 1832941 (CD Cal May 122011) (same)

16
























17





















1997 WL 271723 at 3



18








IV CONCLUSION









19























WL 1832941 (CD Cal May 122011) (same)

16
























17





















1997 WL 271723 at 3



18








IV CONCLUSION









19
























17





















1997 WL 271723 at 3



18








IV CONCLUSION









19





















1997 WL 271723 at 3



18








IV CONCLUSION









19








IV CONCLUSION









19

Documents

Motion to Remove Plaintiffs