Opinion
No. C 02-2813 SI
November 24, 2003
JUDGMENT
The complaint against defendant United India Insurance Co., Ltd. is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Judgment is entered accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD.'s MOTION TO DISMISS
On November 21, 2003, this Court heard oral argument on defendant United India Insurance Company Ltd.'s ("United India") motion to dismiss. Having considered the arguments of the parties and the papers submitted, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to dismiss for the reasons discussed below.BACKGROUND
On August 12, 2003, this Court issued an order in this action granting United India's motion to vacate the default judgment previously entered against it and granting its motion to dismiss it from the lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Order, August 12, 2003 [Docket #82]. The Court granted plaintiff leave to amend the original complaint in an attempt to cure the jurisdictional deficiencies.Id. at 5:18-21. On September 30, 2003, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. United India then filed this Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, asserting (1) lack of personal jurisdiction and (2) insufficiency of service of process. Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss Amended Compl. at 2:1-3. Because this Court finds that there has been no showing of personal jurisdiction over United India, it will not address the service of process question.
LEGAL STANDARDS
A motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction may be brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). "Although the defendant is the moving party on a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists." Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1019 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Where the Court receives only written submissions, "the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction to avoid the defendant's motion to dismiss." Id. (citations omitted). In determining whether plaintiff has met this burden, "uncontroverted allegations in [plaintiff's] complaint must be taken as true, and conflicts between the facts contained in the parties' affidavits must be resolved in [plaintiff's] favor." Id. (citation omitted).
DISCUSSION
This Court's August 12, 2003 Order held that plaintiff had not demonstrated that United India has contacts in California sufficient to allow the Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over it. Order, August 12, 2003, at 5:14-15. Specifically, the Court noted that "[t]he only showing plaintiff has made is that an Indian insurer issued a policy to an Indian business, in India, which provided insurance for goods to be purchased and temporarily stored in California before transport to India." Id. at 5:2-4. The Court granted plaintiff leave to amend the complaint "to allege, if possible, additional factual bases for jurisdiction in this Court." Id. at 5:20-21.
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint contains two allegations that plaintiff argues show United India availed itself of the benefits of California law, thus subjecting it to the jurisdiction of this Court. Amended Compl. at ¶ 2. First, the Amended Complaint alleges that United India persisted in courting the business of defendant Puran Mehta (d/b/a "Raja Gems") with knowledge that the gems to be insured would be traveling through California. Id. Second, the Amended Complaint alleges that United India "led the insured to the belief that he was better protected by United India at a much cheaper rate of premium than if [sic] the insured would be if he had bought insurance in California."Id. at 3:8-10.
Additionally, pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(d) plaintiff has filed supplemental material consisting of several motions and orders from an unrelated action filed in this Court by United India on September 21, 2000. Pl.'s Supplemental Pleading in Supp. of Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss. Plaintiff contends that this material, which shows that United India was once a plaintiff in an action in this Court, demonstrates that United India "is under California jurisdiction" in the present matter. Id. at 1:24-28.
Local Rule 7-3(d) permits parties to bring to the Court's attention "a relevant judicial opinion published after the date the opposition or reply was filed . . . without argument." This Court notes that plaintiff's supplemental pleading does not strictly conform to Rule 7-3(d) because the new material is not submitted for its value as new case law but rather as evidence of this Court's personal jurisdiction over United India. Also, the new material is not limited to judicial opinions published after plaintiff's opposition was filed. However, because plaintiff is not represented by counsel in this matter, this Court will liberally construe Rule 7-3(d) and consider plaintiff's supplemental pleading.
United India asserts that it does not "insure any California residents or businesses, nor has it sold or advertised in California, sent any officers or employee to California, or maintained any offices in California." Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss Amended Compl. at 2:26-28. Plaintiff does not contest this assertion.
Taking all uncontroverted allegations in plaintiff's Amended Complaint as true, and resolving all factual conflicts in plaintiff's favor, plaintiff has still not established that this Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over United India. As this Court explained in its August 12, 2003 Order, plaintiff's showing that an Indian insurer issued a policy to an Indian insured, in India, underwriting goods to be purchased and temporarily stored in California, "is insufficient to demonstrate that United India has intentionally and purposefully taken advantage of California law in this or any other matter." Order, August 12, 2003, at 5:2-6. Neither United India's knowledge that the goods would transit through California, nor its offer of rates competitive with those of California insurers changes this result. Moreover, it would be unreasonable to exercise personal jurisdiction over United India in this case. See Fields v. Sedgwick Associated Risks, Ltd., 796 F.2d 299, 302-03 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that it would be unreasonable for a federal court in California to exercise personal jurisdiction over an English insurer when the policy was issued in England, defendants were located in England, defendants' purposeful interjection into California was minimal, California possessed little interest in providing redress for the English insured and England possessed a strong interest in doing so).
Nor does plaintiff's supplemental pleading provide a basis for this Court to exercise jurisdiction over United India. By filing a completely unrelated action in this Court several years ago, United India did not subject itself to jurisdiction in this matter. First, the filing of one action in a particular forum does not constitute minimum contacts with the forum sufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction. See Bankroft Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat. Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that a federal court may exercise jurisdiction over a defendant as to any cause of action if that defendant's activities in the forum state are "substantial" or "continuous and systematic"). Second, an unrelated action filed in this Court by United India does not give rise to specific personal jurisdiction in the present action because the present action does not arise out of the prior one. See id. (holding that specific jurisdiction exists where (1) defendant has purposefully availed himself of privileges of conducting activities in the forum; (2) the claim arises out of or results from defendant's forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, defendant United India's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is hereby GRANTED. [Docket #90]
IT IS SO ORDERED.