Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00894/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00894-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KERRY O’SHEA, on behalf of himself

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN SOLAR SOLUTION, INC.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 14cv894 L (RBB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS COMPLAINT [ECF No. 14]

Defendant Green Solar Technoloigies, Inc., fka American Solar Solution, Inc., moves to

dismiss the complaint for lack of venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). Plaintiff

Kerry O’Shea opposes the motion. Defendant has not filed a reply memorandum. The Court

considers this motion on the papers submitted and without oral argument.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant directed mass transmission of unsolicited

phone calls to cell phones nationwide in order to promote its business. The phone calls were

made, according to plaintiff, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”),

47 U.S.C. §§ 227 et seq.

Plaintiff contends that from December 2013, through the present, he received unsolicited

autodialed phone calls on his wireless phone from defendant. Although instructing the defendant

to stop calling to place him on the company’s internal “Do Not Call List,” and advising

14CV894

Case 3:14-cv-00894-L-RBB Document 17 Filed 02/26/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

defendant that his cellular phone number was on the Federal Do Not Call Registry, plaintiff

continued to receive unsolicited phone calls. As a result, plaintiff, and a purported class, filed the

action in this district. As noted above, defendant moves to dismiss the complaint for improper

venue. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) allows a defendant to move to dismiss an action

for improper venue. On a Rule 12(b)(3) motion, “the pleadings need not be accepted as true, and

the court may consider facts outside of the pleadings,” but the court must draw all reasonable

inferences and resolve all factual conflicts in favor of the non-moving party. Murphy v.

Schneider Nat'l, Inc., 362 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b),

 “[a] civil action may be brought in-

(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the

State in which the district is located;

(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to

the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is

situated; or

(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this

section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's persona

jurisdiction with respect to such action.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

“For all venue purposes . . . an entity with the capacity to sue and be sued in its common

name under applicable law, whether or not incorporated, shall be deemed to reside, if a

defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court's personal

jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question....” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2). “Plaintiff has

the burden of showing that venue was properly laid in [the district in which the plaintiff filed].”

Piedmont Label Co. v. Sun Garden Packing Co., 598 F.2d 491, 496 (9th Cir.1979).

III. DISCUSSION

 As defendant correctly notes, once a motion to dismiss based on improper venue is filed,

it is the plaintiff’s burden to establish that venue is proper in the district in which it was filed. In

2 14CV894

Case 3:14-cv-00894-L-RBB Document 17 Filed 02/26/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

support of its motion, defendant contends that American Solar does not maintain a permanent

office in the County of San Diego and further states Green Solar Technologies, Inc., is located in

Los Angeles County. Defendant also asserts that it is not a resident of San Diego County

because it does not maintain an office in San Diego and does not conduct telemarketing business

in San Diego County. 

Plaintiff argues and provides evidence that defendant has an office in San Diego and

thereby resides in the district; operates a highly interactive website that specifically targets San

Diego residents; and conducts substantial business in San Diego. Additionally, plaintiff contends

a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this district which makes

venue proper here. Finally, plaintiff asserts with significant evidence that defendant has

substantial or continuous and systematic contacts with the forum state thus subjecting defendant

to the court’s general personal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(3) (providing for venue in

“any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction ...”).

Although permitted to file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, defendant has not done so and

the time to do so has lapsed. Failure to file a reply may be construed as a waiver under the Civil

Local Rules. Even if the Court does not consider defendant’s lack of a reply a waiver, the

evidence submitted by plaintiff is uncontroverted. As a result, plaintiff has met its burden of

demonstrating that the court has personal jurisdiction over defendant. Thus, venue is

appropriately laid in this district. 

Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of venue is DENIED. Defendant

shall answer the complaint on or before March 12, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 26, 2015

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. RUBEN B. BROOKS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

3 14CV894

Case 3:14-cv-00894-L-RBB Document 17 Filed 02/26/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 14CV894

Case 3:14-cv-00894-L-RBB Document 17 Filed 02/26/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4