Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05254/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05254-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brook Cummings
Plaintiff
Novella Cummings
Plaintiff
The Islamic Republic of Iran
Defendant

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BROOK CUMMINGS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-05254-DMR 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 

VENUE

Plaintiffs Brook Gordon Cummings and Novella Cummings filed this personal injury 

action against the Islamic Republic of Iran pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 

(“FSIA”). The FSIA provides that “a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the 

courts of the United States and of the States except as provided in sections 1605 to 1607 of this 

chapter.” 28 U.S.C. § 1604. Under FSIA’s terrorism exception, a foreign state shall not be 

immune from suit in any case “in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for 

personal injury or death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft 

sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of material support or resources for such an act . . . .” 

28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(1). Further, 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c) provides United States nationals and 

other enumerated individuals with a private right of action against “[a] foreign state that is or was 

a state sponsor of terrorism . . . for personal injury or death caused by acts described in [28 U.S.C. 

§ 1605A(a)(1)] . . . .” 

The FSIA has its own venue provision. It provides that a civil action under the FSIA may 

be brought

(1) in any judicial district in 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; 

(2) in any judicial district in which the vessel or cargo of a foreign 

Case 4:19-cv-05254-DMR Document 18 Filed 11/15/19 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

state is situated, if the claim is asserted under section 1605(b) of 

this title;

(3) in any judicial district in which the agency or instrumentality is 

licensed to do business or is doing business, if the action is 

brought against an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state as 

defined in section 1603(b) of this title; or 

(4) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia if 

the action is brought against a foreign state or political subdivision 

thereof.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(f).

In this action, Plaintiffs sue Iran, a foreign state. Therefore, it appears that the United 

States District Court for the District of Columbia is the proper venue for this action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1391(f)(4). 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) states that if a case is filed in an improper district, the 

district court “shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or 

division in which it could have been brought.” Therefore, by no later than November 27, 2019, 

Plaintiffs shall show cause why this action should not be transferred to the United States District 

Court for the District of Columbia.

The November 20, 2019 case management conference is VACATED and will be reset by 

the court if necessary following receipt of Plaintiffs’ response to this Order to Show Cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2019

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:19-cv-05254-DMR Document 18 Filed 11/15/19 Page 2 of 2