Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00591/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00591-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

MEHRDAD ARDALAN, )

) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

) 

vs. ) 

)

NAJMEDDIN NAJM SADRI and NOOSHIN )

MEHRAN, )

) No. 2:15-cv-0591-HRH

 Defendants. ) 

__________________________________________) 

O R D E R

Motion to Dismiss

Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, or in the alternative to transfer this

action to California.1 This motion is opposed.2 Oral argument was not requested and is not

deemed necessary. 

Background

Plaintiff is Mehrdad Ardalan. Defendants are Najmeddin Najm Sadri and Nooshin

Mehran, who are husband and wife. 

1Docket No. 12. 

2Docket No. 13. 

-1-

Case 2:15-cv-00591-HRH Document 14 Filed 11/02/15 Page 1 of 11
Plaintiff alleges that on April 2, 2009, defendant Mehran, who is plaintiff’s niece, 

“executed and delivered a certain promissory note in the amount of $105,000.00 under which

Mehran promised to pay [plaintiff] on demand the sum of $105,000.00 plus interest at the rate

of 30%....”3 The promissory note was executed in California.4 Plaintiff also alleges that on

October 3, 2009, Mehran “executed and delivered a second promissory note in the amount of

... $30,000.00 under which Mehran promised to pay [plaintiff] on demand the sum of

$30,000.00 plus interest at the rate of 30%....”5 The second promissory note was also executed

in California.6 

Plaintiff alleges that Mehran has breached both notes by failing to pay him back.7

Plaintiff alleges that he “holds and owns both of the notes in Arizona where he now resides.”8

Plaintiff also alleges that he has opened a bank account in Arizona in orderto receive payment

on the notes.9

In connection with both promissory notes, plaintiff alleges that Mehran gave him

3

First Amended Complaint at 4-5, ¶ 11, Docket No. 7. 

4Exhibit A, First Amended Complaint, Docket No. 7. 

5

First Amended Complaint at 6, ¶ 15, Docket No. 7. 

6Exhibit C, First Amended Complaint, Docket No. 7. 

7First Amended Complaint at 6-7, ¶¶ 14 & 17, Docket No. 7. 

8

Id. at 8, ¶ 19. 

9

Id. at 2, ¶ 1. 

-2-

Case 2:15-cv-00591-HRH Document 14 Filed 11/02/15 Page 2 of 11
undated checks in the amount of the loans and that the purpose of the undated checks was 

“to guarantee payment of that amount at any time in the future, in case she might default.”10

Plaintiff alleges that “Mehran refuses to fund the checking account with funds sufficient for

the check[s] to be honored....”11 Plaintiff alleges that he “owns and holds the checks at his

home in Maricopa County, Arizona.”12

Plaintiff next alleges that in October 2009, “Sardi gave [plaintiff] an undated check ...

in the amount of $4,880.32 to guarantee a cash loan made by [plaintiff] to Sardi in that

amount.”13 Plaintiff further alleges that in November 2009, “Sardi gave [plaintiff] an undated

check ... in the amount of $500.00 to guarantee the payment of a second cash loan.”14 Plaintiff

alleges that “Sardi refuses to fund the checking account with funds sufficient for the checks

to be honored and has in effect refused to repay the loans.”15 Plaintiff alleges that he “holds

and owns the checks” in Arizona.16

Plaintiff alleges that on April 2, 2009, “Mehran wired $90,000.00 of the $105,000.00 to

10

Id. at 10, ¶ 28. 

11

Id. at ¶ 29. 

12

Id. at 11, ¶ 32. 

13

Id. at 13, ¶ 36. 

14

Id. at ¶ 37. 

15

Id. at ¶ 40. 

16

Id. at 14, ¶ 42. 

-3-

Case 2:15-cv-00591-HRH Document 14 Filed 11/02/15 Page 3 of 11
her sister in Turkey.”17 By doing so, plaintiff alleges that Mehran “removed most of the

money given her under the promissory notes beyond the reach of [plaintiff] and the United

States State and Federal Courts.”18 Plaintiff alleges that if he had known that “Mehran would

immediately wire $90,000.00 out of the United States to her sister in Turkey he would never

have accepted the promissory notes and checks.”19

At some point in time, both plaintiff and Mehran were in Iran and plaintiff sued

Mehran on the promissory notes in Iran.20 Plaintiff received a judgment against Mehran in

Iran.21

On April 1, 2015, plaintiff commenced this action. Inhis amended complaint, he asserts

five counts. In Count I, he asserts a claim for breach of each of the promissory notes. In Count

II, he asserts a claim based on the undated checks Mehran gave him to guarantee payment of

the promissory notes. In Count III, he asserts a claim based on the undated checks Sardi gave

him to guarantee payment of the cash loans. In Count IV, he asserts a fraud claim. And, in

Count V, he asserts a claim for recognition and enforcement of the Iranian judgment. 

Defendants, proceeding pro se, now move to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended

17

Id. at 15, ¶ 44. 

18

Id. at¶ 45. 

19

Id. at 16, ¶ 52. 

20

Id. at 19, ¶ 73. 

21Exhibit H, First Amended Complaint, Docket No. 7. 

-4-

Case 2:15-cv-00591-HRH Document 14 Filed 11/02/15 Page 4 of 11
complaint on the grounds that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over them. If the court

finds that it has personal jurisdiction, then defendants move, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a),

to either dismiss this case or transfer it to California on the grounds that venue in Arizona is

not proper. 

Discussion

“Rule 12(b)(2) allows a party to assert lack of personal jurisdiction as a defense by

motion.” CYBERsitter, LLC v. People’s Republic of China, 805 F. Supp. 2d 958, 966 (C.D. Cal.

2011). “‘Although the defendant is the moving party on a motion to dismiss [for lack of

personal jurisdiction], the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists.’” 

Id. (quoting Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1019 (9th Cir. 2002)). If the

“district court act[s] on the defendant’s motion to dismiss without first holding anevidentiary

hearing, ... the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction to avoid the

defendant’s motion to dismiss.” Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Services, Inc. v. Bell & Clements

Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2003). The plaintiff “‘need only demonstrate facts that if true

would support jurisdiction overthe defendant.’” Id. (quoting Doe, I v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d

915, 922 (9th Cir. 2001)). “Unless directly contravened, [the plaintiff’s] version of the facts is

taken as true, and ‘conflicts between the facts contained in the parties’ affidavits must be

resolved in [the plaintiff’s] favor for purposes of deciding whether a prima facie case for

personal jurisdiction exists.’” Id. (quoting Doe, I, 248 F.3d at 922). 

-5-

Case 2:15-cv-00591-HRH Document 14 Filed 11/02/15 Page 5 of 11
“When no federal statute specifically defines the extent of personal jurisdiction, [the

court] look[s] to the law of the state where the district court sits—in this case, Arizona.” CE

Distribution, LLC v. New Sensor Corp., 380 F.3d 1107, 1110 (9th Cir. 2004). “‘Arizona’s

long-arm rule permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction to the extent allowed by the due

process clause of the United States Constitution.’” Id. (quoting Ochoa v. J.B. Martin & Sons

Farms, Inc., 287 F.3d 1182, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002)).

Although personal jurisdiction may be general or specific, this case only involves

specific jurisdiction. The court applies the following three-part test to determine whetherthe

exercise of specific jurisdiction over defendants would comport with due process:

“(1) the non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his

activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or

resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully

avails himself of the privileges of conducting activities in the

forum ... (2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates

to the defendant’s forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of

jurisdiction must ... be reasonable.”

Id. (quoting Harris Rutsky, 328 F.3d at 1129). 

The exact form of [the court’s] jurisdictional inquiry depends on

the nature of the claim at issue. For claims sounding in contract,

[the court] generally appl[ies] a “purposeful availment” analysis

and ask[s] whether a defendant has “purposefully avail[ed]

[himself] of theprivilege of conducting activities within the forum

State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” For

claims sounding in tort, [the court instead appl[ies] a “purposeful

direction” test and look[s] to evidence that the defendant has

directed his actions at the forum state, even if those actions took

place elsewhere. Because [plaintiff] asserts both a contract and a

-6-

Case 2:15-cv-00591-HRH Document 14 Filed 11/02/15 Page 6 of 11
tort claim, both tests are at issue here.

Picot v. Weston, 780 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2015). 

Defendants argue that they have not purposefully availed themselves of the privilege

of conducting activities withinArizona nor have they directed any actions at Arizona because

the promissory notes were executed in California at a time when all of the parties were

residents of California.22 The undated checks are drawn on California banks and there is no

allegations that these checks were mailed to plaintiff in Arizona. In short, defendants argue

that the transactions at issue here have nothing to do with Arizona, other than plaintiff

happened to move to Arizona at some later point in time. 

Plaintiff does not contend that the court has in personam jurisdiction over defendants.

Rather, plaintiff argues that the court has quasi in rem jurisdiction.23 There are two types of

quasi in rem jurisdiction. In type one, “the court undertakes to determine the claims of

specifically identified persons to the thing in question.”24“Type two quasi in rem jurisdiction

is used to establish the ownership of property in a dispute unrelated to the property.” Office

22Declaration of Nooshin Mehran at ¶¶ 3 & 5, appended to Motion to Dismiss [etc.],

Docket No. 12. 

23Although plaintiff also makes reference to in rem jurisdiction in his opposition, this

case cannot involve in rem jurisdiction. In a true in rem proceeding, “the court undertakes

to determine all claims that anyone has to the thing in question.” Restatement (Second) of

Judgments, cmt. a, § 6 (1982). Such a proceeding is “one ‘against all the world.’” Id. This

proceeding involves only plaintiff’s claims against defendants. 

24

Id.

-7-

Case 2:15-cv-00591-HRH Document 14 Filed 11/02/15 Page 7 of 11
Depot Inc. v. Zuccarini, 596 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2010). The property at issue here, according

to plaintiff, is the promissory notes. Thus, this case could only involve type one quasi in rem

jurisdiction. However, there are no claims to the promissory notes forthe court to determine.

It is undisputed that plaintiff owns the promissory notes. The issue here is that defendants

have allegedly breached the promissory notes and that defendants made fraudulent

statements to plaintiff in connection with the loans. In orderforthe court to have jurisdiction

over such a case, it must have personal jurisdiction over the defendants, which here it does

not because defendants have had no contact with Arizona. Defendants have done nothing

to purposefully avail themselves of the privilege of conducting activities within Arizona nor

have they directed any actions toward Arizona.

Plaintiff thenappears to attempt to plead around the personal jurisdiction requirement

by asserting a claim for recognition and enforcement of the Iranian judgment. “There is

currently no federal statute governing recognition of foreign judgments inthe federal courts.”

Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1212 (9th Cir.

2006). “In a typical enforcement case, the party in whose favor the foreign judgment was

granted comes to an American court affirmatively seeking enforcement. The standard rule

in such a case is that the federal court sitting in diversity applies the law of the state in which

it sits.” Id. at 1213.

Although plaintiff cites to Arizona’s Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Act,

-8-

Case 2:15-cv-00591-HRH Document 14 Filed 11/02/15 Page 8 of 11
that Act has no application here because it does not apply to “ judgments from foreign

countries.” Multibanco Comermex, S. A. v. Gonzalez H., 630 P.2d 1053, 1053 (Ariz. Ct. App.

1981). Rather, 

Arizona courts have relied on two different Restatements that

address the enforcement of international judgments. See Alberta

Sec. Comm’n v. Ryckman, 30 P.2d 121 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001)

(relying on the Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law

of the United States (1987)); Rotary Club of Tucson v. Chaprales

Ramos de Pena, 773 P.2d 467 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989) (relying on the

Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (1971)). The two are

similar in principle; however, the Foreign Relations Restatement

presents a more complete and useful framework for analyzing

foreign-country judgments. 

Global Royalties, Ltd. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, Case No. 07–956–PHX–FJM, 2007 WL

2949002, at *2 (D. Ariz. Oct. 10, 2007). 

Section 481 of the Foreign Relations Restatement provides a

general rule for recognition, a prerequisite to enforcement:

Except as provided in § 482, a final judgment of a

court of a foreign state granting or denying recovery of a sum of money, establishing or confirming

the status of a person, or determining interests in

property is conclusive between the parties, and is

entitled to recognition in courts in theUnited States.

Id. (quoting Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Laws of the United States § 481(1)

(1987)). 

Plaintiff has cited to no authority that suggests that he, as a judgment creditor, would

be permitted to obtain recognition and enforcement of the Iranian judgment without any

-9-

Case 2:15-cv-00591-HRH Document 14 Filed 11/02/15 Page 9 of 11
showing that defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in Arizona. The court’s

independent research has revealed scant authority on this issue. However, what little

authority there is suggests that in orderfor plaintiff to obtain recognition and enforcement of

the Iranian money judgment without any showing that defendants are subject to personal

jurisdiction in Arizona, defendants would have to have some assets in Arizona. In Shaffer v.

Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 210, n.36 (1977), the Court noted that 

[o]nce it has been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction

that the defendant is a debtor of the plaintiff, there would seem to

be no unfairness in allowing an action to realize on that debt in a

State where the defendant has property, whether or not that State

would have jurisdiction to determine the existence of the debt as

an original matter. 

In Lenchyshyn v Pelko Electric, Inc., 281 A.D.2d 42, 43 (N.Y.A.D. 2001), the plaintiffs had

obtained a money judgment against the defendants in Canada. The plaintiffs sought to have

that judgment recognized and enforced in New York and alleged that the defendants had

assets in New York. The court held that underthose circumstances, “[c]onsiderations of logic,

fairness, and practicality dictate that a judgment creditor be permitted to obtain recognition

and enforcement of a foreign country money judgment without any showing that the

judgment debtor is subject to personal jurisdiction in New York.” Id. at 49. 

But here, plaintiff has not alleged that defendants have any assets in Arizona and

-10-

Case 2:15-cv-00591-HRH Document 14 Filed 11/02/15 Page 10 of 11
defendants aver that they have no assets in Arizona.25 All plaintiff has alleged is that the

promissory notes and undated checks, which are evidence of the debt defendants allegedly

owe to plaintiff, are in Arizona. But these are plaintiff’s assets, not defendants. In order to

be permitted to obtain recognition and enforcement of the Iranian judgment, plaintiff would

have to make some showing that defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in Arizona,

a showing that plaintiff has not made.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, defendants’ motion to dismiss

26 plaintiff’s first amended

complaint forlack of personal jurisdiction is granted.27 No leave to amend is granted because

plaintiff has already had one opportunity to cure the jurisdictional defects of his complaint. 

The clerk of court shall dismiss plaintiff’s first amended complaint without prejudice. 

DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 2nd day of November, 2015. 

/s/ H. Russel Holland 

United States District Judge

25Declaration of Najmeddin Najm Sardi at ¶ 6; Mehran Declaration at ¶ 6, both

appended to Motion to Dismiss [etc.], Docket No. 12. 

26Docket No. 12. 

27Because the court is dismissing on personal jurisdiction grounds, it need not consider

defendants’ alternative argument that this case should be dismissed or transferred because

venue is not proper in Arizona. 

-11-

Case 2:15-cv-00591-HRH Document 14 Filed 11/02/15 Page 11 of 11