DECLARATION OF JIM KICHLER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT WESTPAC SURGICAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT UNDER F.R.C.P. 12(B)(1), 12(B)(3), AND 12(B)(6) OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1406(A); and 4. [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT WESTPAC SURGICAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT UNDER F.R.C.P. 12(B)(1), 12(B)(3), AND 12(B)(6) OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1406(A) on the interested parties in this action by:  BY U.S. MAIL by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at San Diego/Carlsbad, California addressed as set forth below. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing.

istrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.   Date:  March 4, 2015 Independence Energy Corp.         By:  /s/  Daniel J. Schreiber   Name: Daniel J. Schreiber   Title: Chief Executive Officer and Director           3 Case 2:17-cv-00819-ILRL-DEK Document 26-2 Filed 05/19/17 Page 9 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA REDHAWK HOLDINGS CORP. AND * CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-819(B)(3) BEACHWOOD PROPERTIES, LLC * * JUDGE LEMELLE VS. * * MAGISTRATE JUDGE KNOWLES DANIEL J. SCHREIBER AND * SCHREIBER LIVING TRUST * – DTD 2/08/95 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * NOTICE OF SUBMISSION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants, Daniel J. Schreiber and Daniel J. Schreiber, Trustee of the Schreiber Living Trust—DTD 2/08/95, submit their Rule 12(b)(3) Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) or, in the Alternative, to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) or § 1404(a) for hearing before the Honorable Ivan L.R. Lemelle, United States District Judge, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130, on June 7, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard. Case 2:17-cv-00819-ILRL-DEK Document 26-3 Filed 05/19/17 Page 1 of 2 -2- Respectfully submitted, /s/ Matt Jones Paul Matthew Jones, T.A. (#19641) LISKOW & LEWIS 822 Harding Street P.O. Box 52008 Lafayette, Louisiana 70505-2008 Telephone (337) 232-7424 Facsimile (337) 267-2399 Dana M. Douglas (Bar #26866) Kathryn Z. Gonski (Bar #33442) LISKOW & LEWIS 701 Poydras Street, Suite 5000 New Orleans, Louisiana 70139-5099 Telephone: (504) 581-7979 Facsimile: (504) 556-4108 Attorneys for Daniel J. Schreiber and Daniel J. Schreiber, Trustee of the Schreiber Living Trust—DTD 2/08/95 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the above and foregoing pleading was served upon all counsel of record by electronic mail on the 19th of May, 2017, and by the Clerk of C

For all of the foregoing reasons, the interests of justice weight in favor of honoring the forum selected by the Plaintiff and denying the Hartz Defendants' motions to dismiss and, the alternative motion to transfer. WHEREFORE, Virbac respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order denying the motions of Defendant Hartz to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. 1406 and the alternative motion to transfer venue to New Jersey, also brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1406, and for such further relief as to which Plaintiffs are entitled. Case 1:05-cv-01128-RMU Document 27

Conclusion Because venue in the Northern District of Texas is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, the court should dismiss this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1406. To the extent the Court decides not to dismiss the case, GSFF respectfully moves the Court to transfer this case to the Central District of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406. Respectfully submitted, April 6, 2017 By: /s/ Phong D. Nguyen Phong D. Nguyen (TX Bar No. 24002690) BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, #1100 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 861-1500 Fax: (202) 861-1783 pnguyen@bakerlaw.com Counsel for Defendant GSF FOUNDATION Case 3:16-cv-03258-B Document 13 Filed 04/06/17 Page 12 of 13 PageID 104 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on April 6, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the District Court using the CM/ECF system, which sent notification of such filing to all counsel of record.

ssal of the complaint in this proceeding under either Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, or Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) for improper venue, or, in the alternative, seeking transfer of this case to the District of North Dakota under either 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) or 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); WHEREAS, the Court has considered the motion papers submitted by the parties and the arguments set forth therein; and WHEREAS the Court has concluded that Defendants’ motion should be granted; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: [ ] the motion of Defendants to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction is hereby GRANTED, and the complaint is hereby dismissed, with prejudice; and/or [ ] the motion of Defendants to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) for improper venue is hereby GRANTED, and the complaint is hereby dismissed, with prejudice; or [ ] the motion of Defendants to transfer this case for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) is hereby GRANTED, and the case is hereby transferred to the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota; or [ ] the motion of Defendants to transfer this case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is hereby GRANTED, and the case is hereby transferred to the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. Case 2:16-cv-07881-SDW-LDW Document 14-6 Filed 02/07/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 164 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to administratively transfer this case to the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.

Once the Court determines that venue is improper, the Court must dismiss or transfer the action to a district in which the action may have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Should the Court determine that the interests of justice warrant that the action not be dismissed, Defendants request the Court transfer the case to the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

Thus, the Court should also transfer this case to a proper venue “in the interest of justice.” III. CONCLUSION Microsoft respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the action, or in the alternative, transfer it to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406. The Supreme Court’s opinion in TC Heartland makes clear that venue is not proper in the Western District of Virginia.

(emphasis added) with 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (“The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.”) (emphasis added). Nevertheless, even under the more permissive standard of § 1404(a), the Williams court granted defendants’ motion to transfer. Williams, 157 F.Supp.2d at 1110.

ubmitted that this Honorable Court should find personal jurisdiction lacking, and thus, either dismiss this matter outright, or alternatively, transfer it to the USDC-EDLA under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). III. CONCLUSION In sum, as shown above, it is respectfully submitted that this Honorable Court can and should: 1) dismiss this action pursuant to FRCP 17 and FRCP12(b)(6), as Highsteppin’ is no longer a juridical entity, and thus, cannot be a real party in interest; 2) unquestionably transfer this matter to USDC-EDLA, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, under 28 U.S.C. § 32 Case 1:09-cv-12208-NMG Document 41 Filed 03/04/2010 Page 32 of 34 1404(a); 3) deem venue improper in Massachusetts under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), and thus, either dismiss this matter outright or transfer to USDC-EDLA under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); and 4) find that personal jurisdiction over Defendants is lacking, and thus, again, dismiss this matter outright or transfer to USDC-EDLA under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Defendants further assert that no evidentiary hearing, nor oral argument, is necessary for a just determination of the issues sub judice presented herein.

See Kotan v. Pizza Outlet, Inc., 400 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D.D.C. 2005) (denying motion under §1406(a) because venue was proper under §1441(a) and noting that “a court may only act pursuant to [§1406(a)] when a case is filed in the wrong venue”). Because Defendants cite no basis other than 28 U.S.C. §1406(a) to support their venue arguments for dismissal or transfer and that section does not apply, Defendants have offered no authority for the relief they seek.2 C. Neither The FDCPA Nor Its Venue Provisions Apply To This Case. 1.