Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02513/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02513-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332pi Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

17cv2513-GPC(JLB)

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

MACHELLE CARDENAS, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a Texas 

corporation; AMERICAN AIRLINES 

GROUP, INC., a publicly traded 

Delaware corporation; Tony LNU, an

individual; and DOES 1 through 100, ,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17cv2513-GPC(JLB)

ORDER DISSOLVING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE FOR IMPROPER 

VENUE

Plaintiff, a resident of Arizona, filed a complaint against Defendants American 

Airlines, Inc., American Airlines Group, Inc. and Tony Lnu for excluding her from her 

flight in Dallas/Fort Worth and then cancelling future flight reservations and placing her 

on a temporary no-fly list without justification. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl.) She alleges causes 

of action under the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 44902(a)(1), breach of contract, 

negligence, assault and battery, false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional 

distress. (Id.) On December 20, 2017, the Court issued an order to show cause why the 

case should not be dismissed for improper venue. On December 29, 2017, Plaintiff filed 

a response. (Dkt. No. 6.) 

Case 3:17-cv-02513-GPC-BGS Document 7 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv2513-GPC(JLB)

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

A court may sua sponte raise the issue of improper venue. Costlow v. Weeks, 790 

F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). A case 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 personal jurisdiction with respect to such 

action.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). A corporate defendant’s residence is the state it has been 

incorporated. Suttle v. Reich Bros. Const. Co., 333 U.S. 163, 166 (1948). Plaintiff has 

the burden to demonstrate the venue is proper in this district. Allstar Mktg. Grp., LLC v. 

Your Store Online, LLC, 666 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1126 (C.D. Cal. 2009). 

In the order to show cause, the Court noted that the complaint does not allege the 

citizenship of Defendant Tony Lnu for purposes of venue. (Dkt. No. 4 at 2.) In her 

response, Plaintiff argues that the Court has diversity jurisdiction over the action even 

though, in her response, she does not address the citizenship of Defendant Lnu and has 

not demonstrated that San Diego is her place of domicile. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert 

Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A person’s domicile is her permanent home, 

where she resides with the intention to remain or to which she intends to return.”) While 

it is not clear whether the Court has diversity jurisdiction over the action, it has subject 

matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff has alleged a cause of action under the Federal 

Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 44902(a)(1). 

As to venue, Plaintiff cites to Cordero v. Cia Mexicana De Aviacion, S.A., 681 

F.2d 669 (9th Cir. 1981) to support her argument that under the FAA, venue is proper in 

the state of the flight’s origin. However, Cordero does not address venue. Instead, 

because the plaintiff, in Cordero, litigated his case in the Central District of California,

the state of the flight’s origin, Plaintiff, in this case, argues that Cordero holds that venue 

Case 3:17-cv-02513-GPC-BGS Document 7 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv2513-GPC(JLB)

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

is proper in the state of the flight’s origin. Cordero makes no such holding, and 

Plaintiff’s argument that under the FAA, venue is proper in the state of the flight’s origin 

is not supported.

Plaintiff next argues that the acts giving rise to the claim of breach of contract 

occurred in San Diego as the contract was executed and performed in San Diego; 

Defendants agreed to transport Plaintiff from San Diego and return her to San Diego and 

all interactions between the plaintiff and defendants were initiated in San Diego. She

purchased a round trip ticket from San Diego to Washington D.C. with a stopover in 

Dallas/Ft. Worth with American Airlines and paid for it by credit card in San Diego. 

(Dkt. No. 6-1, Cardenas Decl. ¶ 4.) She obtained her boarding pass and boarded her 

flight in San Diego. (Id. ¶ 5.) 

On a breach of contract claim, venue is proper in “the place of intended 

performance rather than the place of repudiation.” Lerman v. My Pillow, Inc., Case No. 

SACV 12-916 AG (RNBx), 2012 WL 12953662, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2012) (citing 

Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 842 (9th Cir. 1986)); see 

also Shropshire v. Fred Rappoport Co., 294 F. Supp. 2d 1085, 1094 (N.D. Cal. 2003) 

(citing JSP Int'l v. Tri–Tech Group, Inc., No. 95Civ. 2422 (RPP), 1995 WL 413299, at *5 

(S.D.N.Y. July 13, 1995) (in a breach of contract action venue is proper where the 

contract is negotiated and executed or where it was supposed to be performed).

Here, Plaintiff purchased her airline ticket in San Diego and performance was to

begin in San Diego. Based on the place of intended performance in San Diego, and based 

on the record to date, Plaintiff has demonstrated that venue is proper in this district. 

Thus, the Court dissolves the order to show cause for lack of proper venue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 5, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-02513-GPC-BGS Document 7 Filed 01/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3