UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. 2:25-cv-07878-RGK-MAR Date September 24, 2025
Title Pete Piceno et al v. Bestway USA Inc. et al
Present: The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Joseph Remigio Not Reported N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant:
Not Present Not Present
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause Re: Stipulation to Transfer
Venue [18]
On August 21, 2025, Pete Piceno and Shannon Gannon (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) initiated
the present putative national class action against Bestway USA Inc. (“Bestway USA”), Bestway Hong
Kong International Ltd., and Bestway Inflatables and Material Corp. (ECF No. 1.) To date, only
Bestway USA has been served. On September 18, 2025, Bestway USA filed a stipulation on behalf of
itself and Plaintiffs to request the Court to transfer this action to the United Status District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and the first-to-file rule (the “Stipulation’”).
(ECF No. 18.)
Upon review of the Stipulation, the Court ORDERS the stipulating parties to SHOW CAUSE,
in writing, that transferring this action would be proper either because (1) this action could have been
brought in the Northern District of Illinois or a// parties, even those who have not been served,
consented to this venue as 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) requires; or (2) the first-to-file rule indicates transferring
this entire action to the Northern District of Illinois would be proper.
Section 1404(a) provides that “[f]or 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 or to any district or division to which ai/ parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
(emphasis added). In the Stipulation, the parties fail to explain how this action could have been brought
in the requested venue. Additionally, while the stipulating parties explain that Plaintiffs and Bestway
USA have consented to litigating in the Northern District of Illinois, they fail to indicate whether the
other defendants who have not been served yet have consented. Further explanation on either of these
points is required to discern whether transferring this action would be proper for those remaining
defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
The first-to-file rule allows a district court to transfer, stay, or dismiss an action if a similar
action with substantially similar issues and parties was previously filed in another district court. □□□ L.
Grp., Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Miss., Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1239-40 (9th Cir. 2015). In the Stipulation, the
CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. 2:25-cv-07878-RGK-MAR Date September 24, 2025
Title Pete Piceno et al v. Bestway USA Inc. et al
signing parties assert that simular allegations in this action have been brought against Bestway USA in
an earlier putative national class action that is pending in the Northern District of Illinois. See Castro v.
Bestway (USA) Inc., No. 1:25-cv-09570 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 12, 2025). However, the stipulating parties fail
to clearly identify that this action has substantially similar issues and parties as the first-to-file rule
requires. Thus, further explanation is required to support the request to transfer venue on this ground.
In light of the above, the Court finds that Bestway USA and Plaintiffs have not sufficiently
explained their bases for requesting to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or the first-to-file
rule.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Bestway USA and Plaintiffs to SHOW CAUSE, in writing,
that transferring this action to Northern District of Illinois would be proper. Such a response shall
not exceed seven pages and must be submitted within seven days of this Order’s issuance. Failure to
respond to this Order may result in a denial of the Stipulation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Preparer JRE/gz
CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 2
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.