Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04951/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04951-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHUSEN LU

Plaintiff(s), No. C-07-04951 EDL

v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

CHINA BOWL

Defendants.

___________________________________/

Plaintiff Shu Sen Lu (“Plaintiff”) filed his employment discrimination complaint on September

25, 2007. On November 1, 2007, the Court granted Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application. Plaintiff

alleges age discrimination and retaliation pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42

U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.

Defendants now move to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of venue,

and for failure to state a claim, arguing that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

(“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq., only applies to employers with 20 or more employees and does not

apply to Defendant China Bowl. Plaintiff did not timely oppose the motion, but filed a pleading entitled

“true information” on January 18, 2008, which the Court has considered.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that grounds for personal jurisdiction exist or that venue is proper

in this District. Plaintiff alleges an address for defendants in Missoula, Montana. Defendants submitted

evidence that China Bowl is a Montana corporation with its principal place of business in Montana.

Quan He Han and his wife are the sole officers, directors, and shareholders of China Bowl, are

domiciled in Montana, and have been so domiciled since before the incorporation of China Bowl. Quan

He Han Decl. ¶ 3. China Bowl is a small restaurant with a single location in Montana, and employs

approximately 12 employees. Plaintiff was employed in the restaurant in Montana. Id. ¶¶ 4-5. In fact,

Case 3:07-cv-04951-EDL Document 19 Filed 01/22/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Plaintiff has already filed a claim of age discrimination against China Bowl with the Department of

Labor and Industry in Montana, which was dismissed. Id. ¶ 6. In addition, China Bowl does not do

business in California, has no officers or directors residing there, has no current employees residing

there, has no bank accounts there, does no direct advertising in California, does not pay taxes there, and

was served with the complaint in this case in Montana. Id. ¶¶ 8-21.

Analysis of personal jurisdiction begins with the “long arm” statute in effect in the state in which

the action is pending. Aenestad v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 521 F.2d 1298, 1300 (9th Cir. 1974). In

California, California courts may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the

Constitution of the United States, and thus, a defendant must have such minimum contacts with the state

that the assertion of jurisdiction does not violate “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”

Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., 14 Cal. 4th 434, 444 (1996) (citing Int’l Shoe Co. v.

Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). Here, Defendants have absolutely no contact with California,

let alone the requisite minimum contacts. They have not purposefully availed themselves of the

privilege of conducting business, or the protection of the legal system in California. Nor do any of the

more traditional grounds for personal jurisdiction exist, as Defendants were not served in California,

are not domiciled here, and have not consented to jurisdiction. See Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe,

Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial § 3:39 (2007).

Even if the Court had personal jurisdiction, which it does not, venue would be improper. As

stated by the Ninth Circuit in Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., 212 F.3d 493, 504

(9th Cir. 2000):

Title VII authorizes suit “in any judicial district in the State in which the

unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed” as well as in

the district where employment records are kept, in the district where the plaintiff

would have worked but for the alleged unlawful practice, and, if those

provisions fail to provide a forum, in the district where the defendant keeps its

principal office. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3); Johnson v. Payless Drug Stores

Northwest, 950 F.2d 586 (9th Cir. 1991). Some courts have noted that “this

broad provision for alternative forums was necessary to support the desire of

Congress to afford citizens full and easy redress of civil rights grievances.”

Richardson v. Alabama State Board of Education, 935 F.2d 1240, 1248 (11th

Cir. 1991). In fact, the only limitation contemplated by the provision is that it

seeks to “limit venue to the judicial district concerned with the alleged

discrimination.” Stebbins v. State Farm Mutual Ins., 134 U.S. App. D.C. 193,

413 F.2d 1100, 1102 (D.C. Cir. 1969); Ford v. Valmac Industries, Inc., 494 F.2d

330, 332 (10th Cir. 1974).

Case 3:07-cv-04951-EDL Document 19 Filed 01/22/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1 While a district court that lacks jurisdiction may transfer the case to a district where 

jurisdiction is proper in the interests of justice, the Court finds that transfer is not 

warranted here. 28 U.S.C. § 1631. First, Plaintiff has not requested transfer. Second, 

Plaintiff’s claim appears to be very weak. See, e.g., McFarland v. Memorex Corp., 493

F. Supp. 657, 660 (N.D. Cal. 1980). The ADEA only applies to employers with 20 or more 

employees, and Quan He Han declares that China Bowl never employed more than 

approximately 12 employees. See 29 U.S.C. § 630(b). While Plaintiff appears to dispute

this fact, he offers no evidence in support of his contention. True Information ¶ 4. 

3

Venue, therefore, is only proper in Montana, where the unlawful employment practices were

allegedly committed, where the employment records are kept, and where Plaintiff would have continued

to work. Because there is no basis for personal jurisdiction, and because venue is improper, the Court

need not reach the issue of whether the ADEA applies here.1

For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss is

GRANTED. This dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff’s refiling his claims in the appropriate

venue and jurisdiction. The clerk is instructed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2008 _______________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04951-EDL Document 19 Filed 01/22/08 Page 3 of 3