From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Havensight Capital LLC v. People's Republic of China

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Apr 27, 2015
CV 15-01206 DDP (FFMx) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2015)

Opinion


HAVENSIGHT CAPITAL LLC, a USVI Limited Liability Corporation, Plaintiff, v. THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, Defendant. No. CV 15-01206 DDP (FFMx) United States District Court, C.D. California. April 27, 2015

          ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND/OR IMPROPER VENUE

          DEAN D. PREGERSON, District Judge.

         Plaintiff's Complaint asserts several causes of action against the People's Republic of China ("PRC"). PRC is a foreign state within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1603. As a general matter, foreign states are immune from suit, 28 U.S.C. § 1604, except for certain exceptions defined at 28 U.S.C. § 1605. This Court has jurisdiction over suits against a foreign state only to the extent that some exception under § 1605 applies. 28 U.S.C. § 1330. The Court therefore orders Plaintiff to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the foreign state defendant.

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

(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 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.

         Plaintiff's complaint alleges that "[v]enue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1603(b), " thus apparently invoking § 1391(f)(3). (Compl. at 2.) But § 1391(f)(3), as can be seen above, applies only to actions brought against an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state, not actions brought against a foreign state itself. The Court therefore orders 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.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Havensight Capital LLC v. People's Republic of China

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Apr 27, 2015
CV 15-01206 DDP (FFMx) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2015)
Case details for

Havensight Capital LLC v. People's Republic of China

Case Details

Full title:HAVENSIGHT CAPITAL LLC, a USVI Limited Liability Corporation, Plaintiff…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California

Date published: Apr 27, 2015

Citations

CV 15-01206 DDP (FFMx) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2015)