Havensight Capital LLC v. The Peoples Republic of China et al

Filing 19

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND/OR IMPROPER VENUE by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for improper venue.Plaintiff shall file a response no later than seven (7) days from the date of this order. Failure to respond may result in dismissal of the complaint. (lc)

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

HAVENSIGHT CAPITAL LLC, a
USVI Limited Liability
Corporation,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15

v.
THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF
CHINA,

16
17

Defendant.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 15-01206 DDP (FFMx)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK
OF JURISDICTION AND/OR IMPROPER
VENUE

18
19

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts several causes of action against

20

the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”).

PRC is a foreign state

21

within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1603.

As a general matter,

22

foreign states are immune from suit, 28 U.S.C. § 1604, except for

23

certain exceptions defined at 28 U.S.C. § 1605.

24

jurisdiction over suits against a foreign state only to the extent

25

that some exception under § 1605 applies.

26

Court therefore orders Plaintiff to show cause why this suit should

27

not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the foreign state

28

defendant.

This Court has

28 U.S.C. § 1330.

The

1
2

Additionally, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(f), the appropriate venue
for a civil action against a foreign state is:

3

(1) in any judicial district in which a substantial part of

4

the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or

5

a substantial part of property that is the subject of the

6

action is situated;

7

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

8

foreign state is situated, if the claim is asserted under

9

section 1605(b) of this title;

10

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

11

instrumentality is licensed to do business or is doing

12

business, if the action is brought against an agency or

13

instrumentality of a foreign state as defined in section

14

1603(b) of this title; or

15

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

16

Columbia if the action is brought against a foreign state or

17

political subdivision thereof.

18

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that “[v]enue is proper pursuant to

19

28 U.S.C § 1603(b),” thus apparently invoking § 1391(f)(3).

20

(Compl. at 2.)

21

only to actions brought against an agency or instrumentality of a

22

foreign state, not actions brought against a foreign state itself.

23

The Court therefore orders Plaintiff to show cause why this case

24

should not be dismissed for improper venue.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

But § 1391(f)(3), as can be seen above, applies

2

1

Plaintiff shall file a response no later than seven (7) days

2

from the date of this order.

3

Failure to respond may result in

dismissal of the complaint.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

Dated: April 27, 2015
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3