Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05641/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05641-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANN ZHAI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STEIN TREE SERVICES INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 14-05641 WHA

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In this action arising from a traffic accident in Delaware, a report and recommendation

stated that the complaint should be dismissed for improper venue, but leave to amend should be

granted if plaintiff could allege facts showing that venue would be proper. For the reasons stated

herein, the report and recommendation is ADOPTED, except that leave to amend will not be

permitted.

* * *

Pro se Ann Zhai commenced this action in December 2014 (Dkt. No. 1). The allegations

in her complaint were as follows.

In November 2008, Zhai was struck by a “boom truck” at a traffic stop in Delaware

(Compl. ¶ 40). The boom truck was not marked with a federal or state decal, nor with the name

of a company, but Zhai allegedly discovered that it belonged to defendant Stein Tree Services

Inc. and was operated by a Stein Tree employee who did not have a commercial license 

(Compl. ¶¶ 43–52). Zhai first brought an action in Delaware state court in 2010 against Stein

Tree and its president (Compl. ¶ 10). Zhai v. Stein, No. 10C-11-079, 2012 WL 1409358 at *1, 6

Case 3:14-cv-05641-WHA Document 14 Filed 01/30/15 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

(Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 6, 2012) (Judge Richard R. Cooch). That action was dismissed. Three

years later, Zhai brings this federal action in our district based on the same November 2008

accident in Delaware. The complaint alleges concealment of an “illegal trucking scheme” in

violation of federal law. The state of Delaware and Judge Cooch are named as defendants,

among others (Compl. ¶¶ 4–8, 13–35).

In January 2015, Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero issued a report and recommendation

which stated that the complaint should be dismissed for improper venue “with leave to amend if

Zhai is aware of facts that would show venue to be proper in this district.” Zhai filed a timely

objection (Dkt. Nos. 5, 6).

* * *

This order finds that the complaint must be dismissed for improper venue. 

28 U.S.C. 1391(b). The grievances raised in the complaint stem entirely from a traffic accident

in Delaware that allegedly occurred in November 2008 (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 42). None of the conduct

alleged in the complaint occurred in this district and none of the defendants are residents of this

state. Indeed, they appear to hale from Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania

(Compl. ¶¶ 4–8).

Contrary to Zhai, Section 1965(b) of Title 18 of the United States Code does not establish

venue in this district. Zhai argues that her RICO claim would “accommodate [the] permanent

injury from the Boom Truck collision [in Delaware] and would balance parties in multiple

district[s] in the interest of justice” (Compl. ¶ 12). Not so. Section 1965(b) does not deal with

venue, nor would it establish personal jurisdiction over any of the defendants because no

nationwide RICO conspiracy was alleged in the complaint. Butcher’s Union Local No. 498,

United Food and Commercial Workers v. SDC Investment, Inc., 788 F.2d 535, 538–39 (9th Cir.

1986). 

Accordingly, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED. The venue analysis in the report and

recommendation is ADOPTED.

Case 3:14-cv-05641-WHA Document 14 Filed 01/30/15 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

3

Leave to amend, however, will not be permitted. In her objection, Zhai mentions for the

first time a different traffic accident that allegedly occurred in the Berkeley region in April 2009,

involving a stranger to this litigation. That traffic accident has no connection whatsoever to the

accident alleged in the complaint and that Berkeley accident was never alleged in the complaint. 

Indeed, even Zhai admits that neither her fraud nor RICO claims occurred in California (Obj. 4). 

The “damage was done when Delaware wrongly dismissed Zhai’s case and subsequently refused

to vacate the void order” (Obj. 3). It would be utterly futile to allow leave to amend the

complaint because Zhai cannot allege any specific facts showing that venue would be proper

here.

Accordingly, the report and recommendation is hereby ADOPTED, except that leave to

amend will not be permitted. This dismissal is without prejudice to plaintiff filing suit in a

district where venue would be proper. Of course, Zhai may file a timely appeal to our court of

appeals. Judgment shall be issued in a companion order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2015 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-05641-WHA Document 14 Filed 01/30/15 Page 3 of 3