Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01748/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01748-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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 - 07CV1748

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREA GOOD,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07CV1748-LAB (BLM)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND SUA SPONTE DISMISSING

CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

vs.

FUJI FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE

CO. LTD., (Main Branch: BIJAN

KHOSROWSHAHI, CEO, Sapporo

Branch: MR. MATSUDA, Hakodate

Branch: MR. UCHIDA) NORIO

SUGAWARA, TAKAYA HYANADA, THE

JAPANESE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,

THE JAPANESE FINANCIAL SERVICES

AGENCY, THE JAPANESE MINISTRY

OF TRANSPORTATION, THE NON-LIFE

INSURANCE RATING ORGANIZATION

OF JAPAN (SONGAIHOKEN

RYOURITSU SANSHUTSU KIKOU

SAPPORO BRANCH ,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Andrea Good ("Good"), a United States citizen and resident of Santa Fe, New

Mexico, has filed a Complaint in this district alleging fraud, negligence, gross negligence, and

malicious prosecution arising out of a January 10, 2004 automobile accident and its

aftermath in Jozankei, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan. Good alleges she resided in Japan at the

time and worked in the family business of her husband, who was a Japanese citizen. She

Case 3:07-cv-01748-LAB-BLM Document 3 Filed 09/19/07 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

1

 Normally, where federal subject matter jurisdiction is based solely on diversity of

citizenship, venue is only proper in the following judicial districts: a district where any defendant

resides, if all defendants reside in the same state (28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1)); or a district in which a

"substantial part of the events or omissions" on which the claim is based occurred, or where "a

substantial part of the property" forming the subject matter of the litigation is located (28 U.S.C. §

1391(a)(2)); or, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought, "a district in which

any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced" (28 U.S.C. §

1391(a)(3) -- the "residual venue" provision). 

- 2 - 07CV1748

names as defendants: Fuji Fire And Marine Insurance Co. Ltd. ("Fuji") (in particular, two

branch offices located in Japan and one apparent branch director or employee at each);

Norio Sugawara, an individual identified as Fuji's attorney and a Japanese citizen resident

of Hokkaido, Japan; Takaya Hanada, an individual identified as a client of Fuji and a

Japanese citizen resident of Hokkaido, Japan; three named departments of the Japanese

government; and a Japanese trade association located in Japan. Compl. ¶¶ 3-8. Good

invokes the jurisdiction of this court on grounds of diversity of citizenship, citing 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1332(a)(2), (4), and 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (c)(1). She relies for choice of venue on 28 U.S.C.

§ 1391(d) ("An alien may be sued in any district").1 

From the face of the Complaint, the court has threshold concerns regarding personal

jurisdiction over these remote defendants as well as regarding venue. Good alleges Fuji "is

a Japanese corporation also domiciled in Southern California." Compl. ¶ 4. Only Fuji is

alleged to have any ties to California and is not merely an alien joined with other parties who

are alleged to have contacts with this state, so that Fuji's residence cannot be disregarded

for venue determinations. A search of the California Secretary of State corporate records

identifies "Illinois" as the "Jurisdiction" associated with the Fuji company in the United States

and reveals Fuji's agent for service of process in California resides in Los Angeles,

California. Los Angeles is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court

for the Central District of California, rather than the Southern District of California. No other

named defendant is alleged to have any ties to California, let alone to the Southern District,

and Good alleges no such ties with respect to herself or to the events or omissions forming

the subject matter of this litigation. For those reasons, this district appears to be an

inappropriate venue.

Case 3:07-cv-01748-LAB-BLM Document 3 Filed 09/19/07 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 - 07CV1748

Without expressing any opinion on the jurisdictional issues or the merits of the

Complaint, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the court sua sponte DISMISSES the Complaint

without prejudice to refiling in a proper venue. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Good's

accompanying Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT, without

prejudice to her pursuing that relief in a proper forum. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 17, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01748-LAB-BLM Document 3 Filed 09/19/07 Page 3 of 3