Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00212/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00212-1/pdf.json

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

---

.. 

I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

IS 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

FILED 

[iEP 1 3 2011 I 

CLEAK. u.s. OISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN OIST ICT F CALIFORNIA 

IV OEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PO-HAl TANG, CASE NO. ll-cv-00212 BEN (RBB) 

vs. 

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING APPLICATION 

FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER 

CS CLEAN SYSTEMS AG, [Docket No.7] 

Defendant. 

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Application for Temporary Restraining Order and 

Order to Show Cause Why Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue. (Docket No.7.) For the reasons 

set forth below, the TRO Application is DENIED. 

BACKGROUND 

On October IS, 2007, PlaintiffPo-Hai Tang filed suit against Defendant CS Clean Systems AG 

in San Diego County Superior Court. Defendant sought dismissal based on lack of personal 

jurisdiction and forum non conveniens. The state court held that "California is a seriously 

inconvenient forum with little or no interest in resolving this dispute. On that basis, the motion to 

dismiss is granted." (Tang Decl., Exh. 4, at 1.) The state court explained that "[n]one ofthe events 

that gave rise to Tang's claims took place in California. Tang did not then reside in California, and 

plainly [Defendant] is not a California corporation." (ld., Exh. 4, at 3.) In addition, the state court 

found that either Taiwan or Germany would provide suitable forums to litigate the action. (ld.) The 

- 1 - llcv0212 

Case 3:11-cv-00212-BEN-RBB Document 15 Filed 09/13/11 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 

.. 

California Court of Appeal affirmed the superior court, and the California Supreme Court denied 

Plaintiffs petition for review. (Brockett Decl., Exhs. 1,2.) 

On February 1, 2011, Plaintiff filed the instant action. On April 18, 2011, Defendant filed an 

action against Tang in Germany. (Tang Decl., Exh. 2.) To defend against that action, Tang is required 

to obtain an attorney who will make an appearance on his behalf in Germany on September 14, 2011. 

"[T]his is not a substantive or substantial requirement and is not directed to the merits. Rather, it 

requires merely that an attorney make an appearance by written notice on the defendants' behalf, 

simply stating the defendants' intent to defend the action." (Boettger Decl. ~ 2.) 

On September 2, 2011, Plaintiff applied for a TRO in this Court, requesting that the Court 

"direct[] Defendant CS CLEAN SYSTEMS AG to immediately cease and desist in prosecuting a 

meritless lawsuit in Germany against Plaintiff and Plaintiff s counsel in retaliation against them for 

filing the instant action, and to refrain from filing similar lawsuits during the pendency ofthis action." 

(PI. TRO Appl. at 1.) Plaintiff claims that he will suffer irreparable harm ifa TRO is not issued before 

September 14, 2011. Defendant filed an Opposition to the TRO Application on September 7,2011. 1 

DISCUSSION 

I. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

Anti-suit injunctions "allow the court to restrain a party subject to its jurisdiction from 

proceeding in a foreign court in circumstances that are unjust. . .. The injunction operates in 

personam: the American court enjoins the claimant, not the foreign court." E&J Gallo Winery v. 

Andina Licores S.A., 446 F .3d 984,989 (9th CiT. 2006). "A federal district court with jurisdiction over 

the parties has the power to enjoin them from proceeding with an action in the courts of a foreign 

country, although the power should be used sparingly. The issue is not one ofjurisdiction, but one of 

comity." Id (internal quotation marks omitted). 

The usual standard for the issuance ofinjunctive reliefis not applicable to anti-suit injunctions; 

rather, "foreign litigation may be enjoined when it would (1) frustrate a policy ofthe forum issuing 

the injunction; (2) be vexatious or oppressive; (3) threaten the issuing court's in rem or quasi in rem 

1 Defendant argues that this Court "should dismiss the entire action." (Def. Opp. at 1.) 

Whether this action should be dismissed, however, will be considered when and if a motion to 

dismiss is filed. 

- 2- llcv0212 

Case 3:11-cv-00212-BEN-RBB Document 15 Filed 09/13/11 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 

.. 

jurisdiction; or (4) where the proceedings prejudice other equitable considerations." fd. at 990-91. 

In addition, the impact to comity from issuing an anti-suit injunction must be tolerable. fd. at 991. 

In the present case, Plaintiffhas not shown that any ofthese four factors have been met. First, 

there is insufficient evidence that the action in Germany will frustrate this Court's policY, as the San 

Diego County Superior Court has found that the action is properly brought in either Germany or 

Taiwan. Second, there is insufficient evidence that the action in Germany will be vexatious or 

oppressive, especially where the German action was brought in accordance with the San Diego County 

Superior Court's finding that Germany is a proper forum for the action. Third, Plaintiff does not allege 

that in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction exists in this case. Fourth, Plaintiff claims that allowing the 

German action to proceed would (a) "frustrate public policy" because it was brought to intimidate 

Plaintiff and (b) "interfer[] with this Court's administration of justice" because it would prevent 

Plaintiff from effectively litigating the present action. (PI. Mot. at 3-4.) On the contrary, Plaintiff has 

not shown that equity favors the issuance of an anti-suit injunction, especially where Germany has 

been found to be a proper forum for the action. 

II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

Plaintiffs TRO Application includes a request for an order to show cause why a preliminary 

injunction should not issue. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a motion for preliminary injunction. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs TRO Application is DENIED. Plaintiff is granted leave 

to file a motion for preliminary injunction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: SePtembe~ 2011 

- 3 - IIcv0212 

Case 3:11-cv-00212-BEN-RBB Document 15 Filed 09/13/11 Page 3 of 3