Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03041/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03041-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shyue Yih Chang
Defendant
Leslie Binshyang Song
Plaintiff

Document Text:

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESLIE BINSHYANG SONG,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SHYUE YIH CHANG,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-03041 CRB

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 

A court may authorize a plaintiff to prosecute an action in federal court without prepayment

of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is unable to pay

such fees or give security therefor. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff has submitted the

required documentation, and it is evident from his application that his assets and income are

insufficient to enable plaintiff to prosecute the action.

Viewing plaintiff’s application in isolation, it appears that he should be allowed to

proceed IFP. A court is under a continuing duty, however, to dismiss a case whenever it

determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which

relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from

such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-- (iii).

Plaintiff is a physician. He alleges that while he was working as an intern at Taipei

Veterans General Hospital in Taiwan in the 1980’s he was treated by defendant, a surgeon,
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

2

for treatment of snoring. Plaintiff claims that defendant intentionally created a severe upper

airway obstruction and that this intentional conduct caused plaintiff to become permanently

disabled. He appears to contend that defendant engaged in such “mayhem” because

defendant was anti-American.

Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. First, he does not identify under what law or

statute he makes his claims. Although his complaint sounds in medical malpractice, his

complaint states that it is “an intentional anti-American terrorism mayhem case” instead of a

medical malpractice case. The Court is not aware of any federal statute that would permit

plaintiff to sue a Taiwanese physician for such a claim.

Second, the Court does not have venue of plaintiff’s claims. As he does not identify

any federal statute, the Court will treat the complaint as a diversity case, that is, a case

between a citizen of California and a foreign citizen. Venue of such a case is proper in this

Court only if (1) the defendant resides in this district, (2) “a substantial part of the events or

omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in this district, or (3) the defendant is subject to

personal jurisdiction in this district or is otherwise found in this district. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1391(a), (b). The complaint makes it obvious that the first two conditions do not apply.

The complaint also demonstrates that this Court does not have personal jurisdiction of

defendant, a Taipei surgeon. Personal jurisdiction can be either “general” or “specific.” 

Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technologies Associates, Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1287 (9th Cir.

1977). The basic rule is that the defendant must have certain minimal contacts with the

forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play

and substantial justice. See Data Disc, 557 F.2d at 1287 (citing International Shoe Co. v.

Washington, 326 U.S. at 316. In either case, plaintiff bears the burden of showing that

personal jurisdiction is proper. See Fields v. Sedgwick Assoc. Risks, Ltd., 796 F.2d 299, 301

(9th Cir. 1986). 

If a defendant’s activities in the forum (here, California) were “substantial,” or

“continuous and systematic,” the Court may assert personal jurisdiction as to any cause of

action filed against defendants, regardless of whether the cause of action is related to
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

defendants’ activities in the state. Data Disc, 557 F.2d at 1287. In the Ninth Circuit, “the

level of contact with the forum . . . necessary to establish general jurisdiction is quite high.” 

Shute v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 897 F.2d 377, 380 (9th Cir. 1990), rev’d on other grounds,

499 U.S. 585 (1991). The Ninth Circuit has noted that 

[t]he Supreme Court has upheld general jurisdiction only once. . . . Perkins v.

Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 72 (1952). We have stated that

“the Perkins holding that the cause of action need not arise out of the

defendant's activities in the forum is limited to its unusual facts . . . , and

regularly have declined to find general jurisdiction even where the contacts

were quite extensive.

Amoco Egypt Oil Co. v. Leonis Nav. Co., Inc., 1 F.3d 848, 851 n.3 (9th Cir. 1993).

Plaintiff alleges that defendant did some medical training in California in 1979 and

1980, and that prior to 1998, he would annually attend a medical conference in San

Francisco. Such allegations, assuming they are true, are insufficient to establish general

jurisdiction of defendant. Plaintiff also seeks discovery of defendant’s immigration records;

presumably he wants to verify when defendant has visited California. Again, defendant’s

visits to California do not establish general jurisdiction over him in California.

The Ninth Circuit employs a three-part test in determining whether there is specific

jurisdiction: “(1) The nonresident defendant must do some act or consummate some

transaction with the forum or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of

the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and

protections of its laws;” (2) the claim must arise out of the defendant’s forum-related

activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable. Data Disc, 557 F.2d at

1287. The test is not to be applied mechanically, but “instead must focus on the relationship

among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation within the particular factual context of

each case.” Core-Vent Corp. v. Novel Indus. AB, 11 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir. 1991)(citing

Calder, 465 U.S. at 789). 

Plaintiff’s claims arise from conduct that occurred in Taipei. Plaintiff does not allege

that defendant did any act in this forum that gives rise to his claims. According to the

complaint, plaintiff was treated by defendant because plaintiff was performing his medical

internship in Taipei. That defendant has presented posters of his research and work in
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2005\3041\orderofdismissal.wpd 4

California does not confer specific jurisdiction of plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff’s complaint

also establishes that defendant cannot be currently “found” in this district.

Finally, the Court notes that while plaintiff does not identify a specific statute or

common law pursuant to which he brings his claim, any claim is likely to be barred by the

statute of limitations. The conduct of which he complains appears to have occurred in the

1980’s and he alleges that a newspaper published an article about defendant’s “malicious

conduct” in 1998. He also has attached numerous medical records to his complaint which

document the problems that plaintiff has had as a result of his surgery.

For all these reasons, plaintiff’s complaint–which he seeks to file without the payment

of costs–is DISMISSED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2005 

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE