Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04979/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04979-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

1

 “A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship

may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in (1) a judicial district where

any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHUSEN LU,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHINA BOWL,

Defendant /

No. C-07-4979 MMC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE

TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Before the Court are plaintiff’s “Response to Order Directing Plaintiff to Show Cause

why Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Improper Venue” and a separate document titled

“Amend Complaint to Include China Bowl’s Owners and Employe” [sic], each filed October

18, 2007. 

Plaintiff’s alleges in his complaint that defendant discriminated against him on the

basis of age while plaintiff was employed at defendant’s restaurant in Montana. (See

Complaint at 2:17-20). Defendant’s address of record is in Missoula, Montana and, based

on the information in the complaint, all of the events giving rise to plaintiff’s claim occurred

in Montana. As the complaint does not, on its face, specify adequate grounds for venue in

this District,1

 the Court directed plaintiff to show cause, in writing, why the action should not

Case 3:07-cv-04979-MMC Document 7 Filed 10/29/07 Page 1 of 3
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

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) a judicial

district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may

otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

2

 Title 28 U.S.C. § 1391(d) provides, in its entirety: “An alien may be sued in any

district.”

2

be dismissed for improper venue.

In his response, plaintiff asserts he has lived in San Francisco, California since April

2007, and “desire[s] to have the action remain in this district due to [his] health, mental

issues resulted from injuries [he] sustained during [his] employment at China Bowl.” (See

Pl.’s Resp. at 2:11-14.) Plaintiff states he “does not believe [he] will be able to receive in

Montana the same kind of medical attention at a rate that [he is] now paying.” (See id. at

2:16-17.) Plaintiff further states he cannot afford to travel to Montana, (see id. at 3:2), and

dismissal of the action for improper venue will cause him “not to pursue legal justice that

may be available,” (see id. at 2:22-23). Such concerns, however, do not alter the statutory

requirements for venue.

In addition, plaintiff asserts that “at least one of the owners of China Bowl (QUAN

WEI HAN and MAN LI KANG, husband and wife) is not a citizen of the United States” and

argues this makes venue proper in this District under 29 U.S.C. § 1391(d).2

 (See id. at

3:16-19.) Plaintiff also filed, on October 18, 2007, a document titled “Amend Complaint to

Include China Bowl’s Owners and Employe” (hereafter “Amend Complaint”), by which

plaintiff seeks to add four individuals, including Quan Wei Han and Man Li Kang, (see Pl.’s

Amend Complaint at 1.), as additional defendants. 

A plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter of right where, as here, no

responsive pleading has been filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Plaintiff’s “Amend

Complaint,” however, is deficient in both form and content. If plaintiff wishes to amend his

complaint to add the above-referenced individual defendants, he must file a “First Amended

Complaint,” in which he sets forth all of his claims for relief, names all defendants against

whom he brings his claims, and specifies which claim or claims he brings as to each

Case 3:07-cv-04979-MMC Document 7 Filed 10/29/07 Page 2 of 3
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

 In light of this ruling, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, filed

September 26, 2007, remains under submission.

3

defendant. Additionally, for purposes of determining proper venue, plaintiff must include

therein an allegation of each defendant’s citizenship.

Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiff leave to file a First Amended

Complaint, as set forth above.3 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint shall be filed no later

than November 13, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 29, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04979-MMC Document 7 Filed 10/29/07 Page 3 of 3