Opinion
For City of Almaty, a foreign state, Plaintiff: David J Schindler, Kristen Meredith Tuey, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Bryn M McDonough, Julie Rose Gerchik, Manuel A Abascal, Latham and Watkins LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
For Elvira Khrapunov, an individual, also known as Elvira Kudryashova, also known as Elvira Balmadani, Dmitri Kudryashov, an individual, RPM USA LLC, a New York corporation, RPM-Maro LLC, a New York corporation, Maro Design LLC, a California corporation, Haute Hue LLC, a California corporation, 628 Holdings LLC, a California corporation, Candian International Ltd, a British Virgin Islands corporation, Elvira Kudryashova, as Trustee for The Kasan Family Trust, Dmitri Kudryashov, as Trustee for The Kasan Family Trust, Defendants: Jan Lawrence Handzlik, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jan Lawrence Handzlik APC, Los Angeles, CA.
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE: PENDING MOTION
Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge.
Having reviewed and considered all of the briefing filed with respect to the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint Filed on Behalf of Defendants Elvira Khrapunov (individually and as trustee), Dmitry Kudryashov (individually and as trustee), RPM USA, LLC, RPM-Maro, LLC, Maro Design LLC, Haute Hue LLC, 628 Holdings LLC, and Candian International, Ltd., (collectively " defendants") (" Motion"), the court concludes that oral argument is not necessary to resolve the Motion. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7-15; Willis v. Pac. Mar. Ass'n, 244 F.3d 675, 684 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2001).
BACKGROUND
On May 13, 2014, the City of Almaty (" plaintiff" or " Almaty") filed a Complaint in this court, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (" RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § § 1961et seq., and state law claims for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § § 17200, et seq., breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, fraud, and an accounting. (See Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Other Equitable Relief at ¶ ¶ 57-98). On June 9, 2014, Almaty filed a First Amended Complaint, alleging the same claims. (See First Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Other Equitable Relief at ¶ ¶ 67-125). On November 17, 2014, Almaty filed the operative Second Amended Complaint. (See Second Amended Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Other Equitable Relief (" SAC") at ¶ ¶ 71-124). Plaintiff's causes of action in the SAC include RICO, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, fraud, and an accounting. ( See id. at ¶ ¶ 71-124).
I. THE ALLEGED RACKETEERING ENTERPRISE AND CONSPIRACY.
Almaty, the largest city in the Republic of Kazakhstan (" Kazakhstan"), alleges that Viktor Khrapunov (" Viktor") and co-conspirators stole hundreds of millions of dollars of assets from Almaty while Viktor was mayor of Almaty from 1997 through 2004. (See SAC at ¶ ¶ 1-2, 20-22). Plaintiff alleges that defendants " improperly influenc[ed]" auctions of Almaty real estate, purchased assets at " artificially suppressed" prices, and sold those assets at a significant profit. ( See id. at ¶ ¶ 25, 26). Plaintiff describes four examples of the allegedly illegal acquisition of plaintiff's property, ( see id. at ¶ ¶ 38-50), and further alleges that over 80 pieces of real estate, valued at approximately $300 million, were illegally acquired. ( See id. at ¶ 38).
In 2007, after learning of an investigation by the Kazakh government, Viktor fled to Switzerland. (See SAC at ¶ 33). Plaintiff alleges that defendants Iliyas Khrapunov (" Iliyas") and Elvira Khrapunov (" Elvira"), both of whom lived in Switzerland, and Leila Khrapunov (" Leila"), received in Switzerland hundreds of millions of dollars transferred out of Kazakhstan by Viktor and Leila. ( See id. at ¶ 29). These funds were allegedly laundered through " various offshore holding companies[.]" ( See id. ).
According to plaintiff, millions of dollars of stolen funds were later transferred into the United States " through accounts, sham companies, and disguised entities owned or ultimately controlled by" defendants Elvira, Dmitry Kudryashov (" Dmitry"), Iliyas, and/or Madina Ablyazova (" Madina") (collectively with Viktor and Leila, " Individual Defendants" or " Khrapunov Family"), (see SAC at ¶ 28), and that some of the funds have been used to purchase real estate and other assets in California and New York, to fund U.S. holding companies owned or controlled by Leila, Iliyas, Madina, Elvira, and/or Dmitry, and to invest in U.S. businesses. ( See id. at ¶ 30). These financial dealings consisted of: (1) the purchase of four, single-family residences in California, ( see id. ¶ ¶ 60-61, 63-65); (2) Elvira's lease and possible purchase of four luxury vehicles, (see id at ¶ 66); (3) investments in U.S. companies, including defendants Maro Design LLC, Haute Hue LLC, RPM USA LLC (" RPM USA"), and RPM-Maro, LLC, all of which plaintiffs allege are owned or controlled by Elvira, Dmitry, Iliyas, and/or Madina, ( see id. at ¶ 67); (4) a $6 million investment by RPM USA, which is owned or controlled by Iliyas, in a New York-based medical device company, ( see id. at ¶ 68); (5) a $67.5 million investment by Iliyas to purchase a partial interest in a luxury hotel in New York, ( see id. at ¶ 69); and (6) three transfers of money totaling approximately $4.3 million by Iliyas and Elvira into U.S. bank accounts. ( See id. at ¶ ¶ 57-59).
II. PENDING INVESTIGATIONS IN KAZAKHSTAN AND SWITZERLAND.
In 2011 and 2012, the Investigation Department of the Agency for Economic and Corruption-Related Crimes of Kazakhstan (the " Financial Police") brought criminal charges against Viktor, Leila, Iliyas, and Elvira in connection with allegations of theft of public property and money laundering. (See SAC at ¶ 34). In 2012, the Financial Police applied to the Federal Office of Justice in Switzerland for legal assistance with the Financial Police's prosecution of Viktor, Leila, Iliyas, and Elvira. ( See id. at ¶ 35). In mid-2012, the Public Prosecutor of Geneva opened an investigation into Viktor, Leila, Iliyas, and Elvira on suspicion of money laundering to determine whether there had been any violation of Swiss law. ( See id. ).
The court grants Moving Defendants' request for judicial notice, filed on December 1, 2014. See Fed.R.Evid. 201; Petersen v. Boeing Co., 715 F.3d 276, 281 (9th Cir. 2013) (taking judicial notice of a State Department advisory). The SAC refers to Kazakhstan's requests for legal assistance to Switzerland's Federal Office of Justice and discusses Switzerland's response thereto, i.e., the subsequent investigation and freezing of certain Swiss accounts and assets. (See SAC at ¶ 35).
In November 2012, the Public Prosecutor of Geneva froze Swiss accounts and assets belonging to Viktor, Leila, Iliyas, and Elvira. (See SAC at ¶ 35). The investigation by the Swiss authorities is ongoing. ( See id. ). There are also criminal cases pending against Viktor, Leila, and Elvira in Kazakhstan. ( See id. at ¶ 36).
On January 16, 2015, the court denied plaintiff's application for ex parte relief for an enlargement of time within which to serve defendants Viktor, Leila, Iliyas, and Madina, (collectively, the " Switzerland Defendants"), and dismissed without prejudice the Switzerland Defendants because plaintiff had failed to serve them with a summons and complaint. (See Court's Order of January 16, 2015). On April 8, 2015, plaintiff filed a complaint in this court against the Switzerland Defendants, alleging the same claims. (See Case No. CV 15-2628 FMO (CWx), Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Other Equitable Relief at ¶ ¶ 68-121).
LEGAL STANDARD
" At bottom, the doctrine of forum non conveniens is nothing more or less than a supervening venue provision, permitting displacement of the ordinary rules of venue when, in light of certain conditions, the trial court thinks that jurisdiction ought to be declined." American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 453, 114 S.Ct. 981, 988, 127 L.Ed.2d 285 (1994). " To prevail on a motion to dismiss based upon forum non conveniens, a defendant bears the burden of demonstrating an adequate alternative forum, and that the balance of private and public interest factors favors dismissal." Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 643 F.3d 1216, 1224 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 1996, 185 L.Ed.2d 865 (2013).
" A plaintiff's choice of forum is generally entitled to deference, especially where the plaintiff is a United States citizen or resident, because it is presumed a plaintiff will choose her home forum." Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059, 1076 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). " This deference is far from absolute, however, and it is within the court's discretion to decide whether a foreign forum is more convenient." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp., 236 F.3d 1137, 1143 (9th Cir. 2001) (The " forum non conveniens determination is committed to the sound discretion of the district court."); see also Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 529, 108 S.Ct. 1945, 1953, 100 L.Ed.2d 517 (1988) (" the district court is accorded substantial flexibility in evaluating a forum non conveniens motion"). " [W]here the court has considered all relevant public and private interest factors, and where its balancing of these factors is reasonable, its decision deserves substantial deference." Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1143 (internal quotation marks omitted).
DISCUSSION
As an initial matter, the court notes that less deference to plaintiff's choice of forum is warranted here. Plaintiff is a city in Kazakhstan. (See SAC at ¶ 1). " [A] foreign plaintiff's choice of forum merits less deference than that of a plaintiff who resides in the selected forum, and the showing required for dismissal is reduced." Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1145.
I. ALTERNATIVE FORUM.
An " alternative forum is deemed adequate if: (1) the defendant is amenable to process there; and (2) the other jurisdiction offers a satisfactory remedy." Carijano, 643 F.3d at 1225. Almaty does not argue that defendants are not amenable to process in Switzerland, and thus the first prong of this test is not in dispute. See Ranza, 793 F.3d at 1077. Additionally, it should be noted that courts have long held that Switzerland's judicial system is available and adequate to provide just and appropriate remedies to litigants. See, e.g., Medicor AG v. Arterial Vascular Eng'g, 1997 WL 68564, *7 (N.D. Cal. 1997) (" Upon weighing the private interest and public interest factors, . . . the balance tips heavily in favor of litigating this action in Switzerland."); Delta Alcohol Distributors v. Anheuser-Busch Int'l, Inc., 28 F.Supp.3d 682, 690 (E.D. Mich. 2014) (" [T]he courts of Geneva, Switzerland, are an available and adequate alternative forum.").
Plaintiff's entire argument that Switzerland is not an adequate forum consists of two paragraphs, one of which simply makes generalized assertions with no authority or citations to the record. (See Plaintiff City of Almaty's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (" Opp.") at 23-24). The only argument plaintiff makes is that " Switzerland would be an [in]adequate alternative forum to adjudicate this case, " because it " involves violations of United States law based on conduct that occurred within the United States." (Id. at 23). Plaintiff's assertion is unpersuasive and ignores the crux of its own complaint.
A cursory reading of the SAC reveals that the vast majority of the alleged wrongdoing occurred in Kazakhstan. (See, generally, SAC); see also infra at § § II.A.2., II.A.3., II.B.1. Following the alleged wrongdoing, which occurred from 1997 to 2004 in Kazakhstan, (see SAC at ¶ ¶ 2, 21-22), Iliyas and Elvira, both of whom lived in Switzerland, and Leila allegedly received -- in Switzerland -- hundreds of millions of dollars transferred out of Kazakhstan by Viktor and Leila. ( See id. at ¶ 29). Only after the funds were allegedly transferred to Switzerland and laundered through " various offshore holding companies, " ( see id. ), did any of the funds ever reach the United States. ( See id. at ¶ 30). In fact, in November 2012, the Public Prosecutor of Geneva ordered that the Swiss accounts and assets belonging to Viktor, Leila, Iliyas, and Elvira be frozen. ( See id. at ¶ 35).
Further, plaintiff does not dispute, (see, generally, Opp. at 23-24), that Swiss courts are an adequate forum to address allegations of money laundering. See LaSala v. UBS, AG, 510 F.Supp.2d 213, 223 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (finding that Swiss courts constitute an adequate alternative forum because " portions of Swiss law are designed to prevent banks from facilitating money laundering") (internal quotation marks omitted); Yavuz v. 61 MM, Ltd., 576 F.3d 1166, 1177 (10th Cir. 2009) (affirming district court's dismissal and finding of Swiss forum's adequacy in a financial fraud and RICO case). Indeed, Kazakhstan has already sought the assistance of Swiss judicial officials by making exactly the same allegations it seeks to assert here. (See Declaration of Jan L. Handzlik in Support of Moving Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (" Handzlik Decl.") at Exhs. C (Letter from the Kazakh Financial Police to the Swiss Federal Office of Justice, dated February 20, 2012) (" February 20 Letter") & D (Letter from the Kazakh Financial Police to the Swiss Federal Office of Justice, dated September 14, 2012) (" September 14 Letter")).
Finally, plaintiff argues that Moving Defendants have not established that if Almaty were to prevail in a Swiss court, Almaty would be able to obtain a judgment against the allegedly embezzled funds in the United States. (See Opp. at 24). But plaintiff overstates Moving Defendants' burden. " [A] forum will be inadequate only where the remedy provided is so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory, that it is no remedy at all." Carijano, 643 F.3d at 1226 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1144 (holding a foreign forum is adequate " unless it offers no practical remedy for the plaintiff's complained of wrong" and that " it is only in rare circumstances where the remedy provided by the alternative forum is so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory, that it is no remedy at all"). " [T]hat the law, or the remedy afforded, is less favorable in the foreign forum is not determinative." Loya v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 583 F.3d 656, 666 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1062, 131 S.Ct. 645, 178 L.Ed.2d 479 (2010). " A foreign forum must merely provide 'some' remedy." Ranza, 793 F.3d at 1077. Indeed, there is no requirement that the available remedy be judicial. See Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1144-45 (holding New Zealand's administrative compensation system for accident victims was adequate, even though it was not a judicial remedy). Swiss law provides for civil claims in connection with the criminal proceedings. (See Handzlik Decl., Exh. H (excerpts of Swiss Criminal Procedure Code) at Section 3: Private Claimants, art. 119 (allowing private claimants to " file private law claims based on the offen[s]e (a civil claim)") and Section 4: Civil Claims, art. 122 (establishing that " [t]he person suffering harm may bring civil claims based on the offen[s]e as a private claimant in the criminal proceedings")). Thus, Switzerland provides plaintiff with a remedy for the alleged wrong and the court finds that Switzerland is an adequate forum.
II. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INTEREST FACTORS.
As an initial matter, the court notes that plaintiff devotes only three paragraphs to addressing both the public and private interest factors. (See Opp. at 24-25). As discussed below, both the private and public interest facts in the forum non conveniens inquiry favor dismissal.
A. Private Interest Factors.
The factors relating to the private interests of the litigants include: " (1) the residence of the parties and the witnesses; (2) the forum's convenience to the litigants; (3) access to physical evidence and other sources of proof; (4) whether unwilling witnesses can be compelled to testify; (5) the cost of bringing witnesses to trial; (6) the enforceability of the judgment; and (7) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive." Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1145 (internal quotation marks omitted). " The district court should look to any or all of the above factors which are relevant to the case before it, giving appropriate weight to each." Id.
1. Residence of the Parties and Convenience to Litigants .
Viktor, Leila, Iliyas, and Madina are citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan and currently reside in Switzerland. (See SAC at ¶ ¶ 9 & 11). Elvira is a citizen of the Republic of Kazakhstan and Switzerland, and currently resides in Studio City, California and Dmitry is a citizen of the Russian Federation and also currently resides in Studio City, California. ( See id. at ¶ 11). Plaintiff alleges that defendants (1) Maro Design LLC, Haute Hue LLC, and 628 Holdings LLC are corporations organized and existing under the laws of the State of California; (2) RPM USA, LLC and RPM-Maro, LLC are corporations organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, ( see id. ), and (3) Candian International Ltd. is an offshore corporation organized under the laws of the British Virgin Islands (collectively, the " Corporate Defendants"). ( See id. at ¶ 12).
Plaintiff is a city in the Republic of Kazakhstan, (see SAC at ¶ 1), so it has no basis for claiming that it is more convenient to litigate in Los Angeles. Four of the six Individual Defendants reside in Switzerland and two reside in California. ( See id. at ¶ ¶ 9 & 11). With respect to the Corporate Defendants, three are based California, two in New York, and one in the British Virgin Islands. ( See id. at ¶ 12). The Individual Defendants, especially Viktor and the rest of the Switzerland Defendants, played a much larger role in the alleged misconduct than did the Corporate Defendants. ( See id. at ¶ ¶ 19-32) (" Overview of the Viktor Racketeering Enterprise and Conspiracy"); (id. at ¶ ¶ 37-50) (" The Theft of Property: Individual Defendants Unlawfully Converted Almaty Property and Ultimately Sold it to Third Parties at Enormous Profit"). Thus, the convenience to the litigants of proceeding in Switzerland weighs in favor of the Moving Defendants.
The parties do not discuss the Corporate Defendants' residence. (See, generally, SAC, Motion, Opp.).
Plaintiff argues that the two Individual Defendants located in this district -- Elvira and Dmitry -- are " two of the individual Defendants most involved in the predicate acts[.]" (Opp. at 24). However, plaintiff's characterization of the Individual Defendants' relative roles belies the record. (See SAC ¶ ¶ 19-32) (" Overview of the Viktor Racketeering Enterprise and Conspiracy"); (id. at ¶ ¶ 37-50) (" The Theft of Property: Individual Defendants Unlawfully Converted Almaty Property and Ultimately Sold it to Third Parties at Enormous Profit"). Plaintiff's emphasis on Elvira and Dmitry flows from its unwarranted focus on activity in the United States, which was clearly minor when compared to the Khrapunov Family's alleged European exploits, especially in Kazakhstan. ( See id. ). " [A] court should evaluate the materiality and importance of the anticipated evidence and witnesses' testimony[.]" See Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1146 (internal quotation and alternation marks omitted). Based on plaintiff's allegations, Dmitry may have been the least involved of all the Individual Defendants. Not only do the majority of the Individual Defendants reside in Switzerland, but the Switzerland Defendants, are likely to provide the most material and important testimony in this action. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
2. Factors Relating to Witnesses .
The court consolidates its discussion of the private interest factors relating to witnesses, i.e., the first, fourth and fifth factors. The court " evaluate[s] the materiality and importance of the anticipated [evidence and] witnesses' testimony and then determine[s] their accessibility and convenience to the forum." Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1146 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Carijano, 643 F.3d at 1230 (considering " the true nature of Plaintiffs' claims").
Moving Defendants assert that " [m]any relevant witnesses, including bank personnel and corporate officers, are . . . likely to be in Switzerland, as are the documents pertaining to defendants' purported transactions." (See Motion at 13). The court agrees. Contrary to plaintiff's assertions regarding Elvira and Dmitry, (see Opp. at 24), the extent of the money laundering alleged to have occurred in Switzerland far eclipses the handful of transactions alleged to have occurred in the United States. (See February 20 Letter at ¶ ¶ 41-46; September 14 Letter at ¶ ¶ 4-6). Moreover, witnesses and documents pertaining to the fraudulent real estate transactions underlying plaintiff's claims, all of which occurred in Kazakhstan, (see SAC at ¶ ¶ 37-50), are likely to be in Kazakhstan, which is much closer to Switzerland than to California. (See Motion at 13).
In addition, plaintiff is likely to rely on testimony and documents from officials of the current government in Kazakhstan who are actively investigating the Khrapunov Family. (See Motion at 13). Indeed, Kazakh investigators have already traveled to Switzerland to participate in ongoing Swiss proceedings. (See Motion at 13-14; Handzlik Decl., Exh. L (May 9, 2014 letter from the Office of the Public Prosecutor in Geneva with attachment authorizing Kazakh investigators to participate in Swiss proceedings against Viktor and Leila) (" May 9 Letter")).
Finally, the cost of bringing these witnesses and documents, the majority of which are in a language other than English, (see Motion at 13 n. 5), from Switzerland and Kazakhstan to California -- where the allegedly illegal activity was substantially less widespread and damaging -- would be substantial and highly burdensome to the vast majority of witnesses in this case. Further, experts on Kazakh law, and almost certainly Swiss law, as well as Kazakh and Swiss officials, would have to be retained to review foreign law and how the underlying activity in Kazakhstan, and later Switzerland, constituted a violation of the law.
In short, the three factors relating to witnesses all weigh in favor of dismissal. See Loya, 583 F.3d at 664-65 & 667 (affirming dismissal in favor of Mexico where injury occurred there); Leetsch v. Freedman, 260 F.3d 1100, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 2001) (" Because all the representation that underlies the legal services fee and cost claims occurred in Germany, with only the exception of correspondence between the parties, most sources of evidence on the issues will likely be located in Germany."); Interpane Coatings, Inc. v. Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd., 732 F.Supp. 909, 917 (N.D.Ill. 1990) (" This added burden [of expert testimony on Australian law] affects not only the public interest in avoiding wasted time, but also the private interest in avoiding excessive inconvenience and expense."); Warrick v. Carnival Corp., 2013 WL 3333358, *7 (S.D. Fl. 2013) (" It will be much less expensive for the five Plaintiffs to travel to Italy than for the entire cadre of relevant Italian and European witnesses to travel to the United States.").
3. Access to Evidence and Sources of Proof .
Although plaintiff attempts to characterize this case as focusing on the alleged money laundering in the United States rather than the alleged underlying fraud that gave rise to the need for money laundering, the record is clear that the vast majority of the alleged illegal activity occurred in Kazakhstan, and to a lesser extent in Switzerland. Plaintiff argues that the evidence it will rely on to prove that domestic transactions violated U.S. law is likely to be located in the United States. (See Opp. at 24). However, that evidence -- property records, bank records, etc. -- is likely within the control of, and/or accessible to, the Individual Defendants involved in each specific transaction, (see SAC at ¶ ¶ 57, 59-61, 63-69), including the only Individual Defendants in the United States -- Elvira and Dmitry -- who can easily take the evidence to Switzerland.
In addition, most of the relevant evidence is in Kazakhstan and Switzerland. (See SAC ¶ ¶ 37-50; Motion at 13-14; May 9 Letter). This court does not have the power to order the production of evidence under the control of Swiss authorities or to order the appearance of the Switzerland Defendants. See Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1146-47 (finding that the district court's inability to order the production of foreign, government-controlled evidence and foreign, unwilling witnesses weighs in favor of dismissal). In short, it would be substantially less burdensome for the parties to obtain access to the evidence in Switzerland. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal. See Giglio Sub S. N.C. v. Carnival Corp., 2012 WL 4477504, *15 (S.D. Fla. 2012), aff'd, 523 F.App'x 651 (11th Cir. 2013) (" implementation and monitoring evidence is likely available almost exclusively in Europe, as it requires proof of how Defendants did or did not put into place and keep track of compliance with policies aboard the Costa Concordia"); see also Piper Aircraft Co. V. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257-58, 102 S.Ct. 252, 267, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981) (" [T]he District Court did not act unreasonably in concluding that fewer evidentiary problems would be posed if the trial were held in Scotland. A large proportion of the relevant evidence is located in Great Britain.").
4. Enforceability of Judgment .
Moving Defendants argue that plaintiff " could seek to enforce a Swiss judgment against Moving Defendants." (Motion at 14). Plaintiff does not affirmatively dispute or otherwise respond to that argument. (See, generally, Opp. at 24). Moving Defendants assert that " Swiss law provides for what are known as 'adhesive' civil claims in connection with criminal proceedings, which would allow Plaintiff to seek exactly the same monetary compensation it seeks here." (Motion at 12; Handzlik Decl., Exh. H (Excerpts of Swiss Criminal Procedure Code) at Section 3: Private Claimants, art. 119 & Section 4: Civil Claims, art. 122). However, the existence of Swiss " adhesive" claims goes to the adequacy of the forum, not the enforceability of the judgment. In any event, even according to plaintiff, the vast majority of the more than $300 million dollars in ill-gotten gains does not appear to have made its way to the United States. (See SAC at ¶ ¶ 32, 35, 38, 51, 57-69). Therefore, this factor is neutral. Cf. Dibdin v. S. Tyneside NHS Healthcare Trust, 2013 WL 327324, *5 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (finding Lueck's enforceability of judgment factor neutral where neither party claimed that a U.S. or English judgment would be unenforceable).
B. Public Interest Factors.
The public factors relating to the interests of the forums include: " (1) local interest of lawsuit; (2) the court's familiarity with governing law; (3) burden on local courts and juries; (4) congestion in the court; and (5) the costs of resolving a dispute unrelated to this forum." Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1147.
1. Local Interest .
Plaintiff does not even address whether California has a stronger local interest in the lawsuit than Switzerland. (See, generally, Opp. at 24-25). In any event, it could not make such a showing because it is clear that California has relatively little interest in a suit initiated by a city in Kazakhstan against Kazakh citizens, most of whom live in Switzerland, based primarily on conduct alleged to have occurred in Kazakhstan and Switzerland. (See SAC at ¶ ¶ 7, 9, 11, 21-22, 25-26, 38-50); Cheng v. Boeing Co., 708 F.2d 1406, 1411 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1017, 104 S.Ct. 549, 78 L.Ed.2d 723 (1983) (" [C]ourts may validly protect their dockets from cases which arise within their jurisdiction, but which lack significant connection to it[.]") (citation omitted). While the United States has an interest in deterring and preventing money laundering in U.S. banks, dollar transfers through banks in the United States do not necessarily create a strong public interest in favor of the local forum. See, e.g., LaSala, 510 F.Supp.2d at 229 (" [T]he argument that dollar transfers through banks in the United States creates a strong public interest in favor of the United States has been rejected by courts in [the Second] Circuit."); Lan Assocs. XVIII, L.P. v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 1997 WL 458753, *6 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (finding that alleged wire transfer of funds in New York was insufficient to create public interest link to New York because " [w]ere such a minimal contact with New York to be deemed significant, this Court, located in one of the world's largest and busiest financial centers, would be burdened with countless international financial disputes having no real, substantive link to New York").
There appears to be a split of authority as to whether to compare the state interests or only consider the local interests where the lawsuit was filed. See Carijano, 643 F.3d at 1233 n. 3 (" There appears to be a difference of opinion about whether it is appropriate to compare the state interests, or whether this factor is solely concerned with the forum where the lawsuit was filed."). The court applies the former approach. See Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1147 (balancing the interests of the foreign and domestic jurisdictions with the factor weighing in favor of dismissal because the " local interest in this lawsuit is comparatively low").
Here, the vast majority of the harm occurred in Kazakhstan. (See SAC at ¶ ¶ 21-27, 38-50). According to plaintiff, defendants then moved their illegally-obtained funds from Kazakhstan to Switzerland through a series of account deposits and business investments. ( See id. at ¶ ¶ 29, 33, 35, 52). At the time of the alleged transfers, at least half of the Individual Defendants were residing in Switzerland. ( See id. at ¶ ¶ 33, 35). Swiss authorities opened an investigation, which is still ongoing, into the allegedly illegal activity occurring within its borders and froze the Swiss accounts and assets belonging to Viktor, Leila, Iliyas, and Elvira. ( See id. at ¶ 35). Plaintiff's allegations that illegally-obtained funds were also transferred or invested in U.S. bank accounts, business ventures, four private homes, and personal automobiles, ( see id. at ¶ ¶ 57-61, 63-69), does not significantly change the analysis when weighed against the extent of the wrongdoing alleged to have occurred in Kazakhstan and Switzerland. ( See id. at ¶ ¶ 21-32, 38-50); see, e.g., Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 260, 102 S.Ct. at 268 (" Scotland has a very strong interest in this litigation. The accident occurred in its airspace. All of the decedents were Scottish. Apart from Piper and Hartzell, all potential plaintiffs and defendants are either Scottish or English."); Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1147 (" [T]he interest in New Zealand regarding this suit is extremely high. The crash involved a New Zealand airline carrying New Zealand passengers."). In short, California's interest in this lawsuit is weak when compared to Switzerland's very strong interest. This factor weighs in favor of dismissal.
2. Court's Familiarity With Governing Law .
The court also considers its familiarity with governing law. See Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1148 n. 6 (" [B]ecause New Zealand law is likely to apply in this suit, the choice of law determination weighs in favor of dismissal."); In re Air Crash at Madrid, Spain, on August 20, 2008, 893 F.Supp.2d 1020, 1040 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (" The mere likelihood or possibility that foreign law would apply weighs in favor of dismissal."); Warrick, 2013 WL 3333358, at *10 (" Italy has a substantial interest in the accident as shown by its administrative and criminal investigations into it. Italian law will likely apply in this case. An Italian court would be more at home with the law that will likely govern this action.") (footnote omitted).
Under most circumstances, it is unnecessary to perform a complete choice of law analysis. See Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1148 (" the choice of law analysis is only determinative when the case involves a United States statute requiring venue in the United States, such as the Jones Act or the Federal Employers' Liability Act"); Carijano, 643 F.3d at 1234 (" [R]esolving the conflict of law issue would involve a full blown analysis of the state interests and relative impairment. As the district court noted, forum non conveniens is designed so that courts can avoid such inquiries at this early stage.").
Plaintiff asserts that " [e]ven though some analysis of foreign law may be required to establish certain elements of the predicate acts, " the focus of this case and the wrongs for which plaintiff seeks redress took place in the Central District, and federal and California state law will govern the lawfulness of those activities. (See Opp. at 25). Plaintiff's assertion is unpersuasive. As discussed earlier, the vast majority of the allegedly illegal acts and the harm suffered as a result, occurred in Kazakhstan and Switzerland. See supra at § § II.A.2., II.A.3., II.B.1. There is no doubt that keeping this case here would require the court to both translate Kazakh and Swiss evidence and apply the law from those countries as well. In short, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal. See Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1144 (requiring district courts to interpret the law of foreign jurisdictions is " diametrically opposed to [one of the purposes of the doctrine of forum non conveniens], as it was designed in part to help courts avoid conducting complex exercises in comparative law") (internal quotation marks omitted); Leetsch, 260 F.3d at 1105 (" Not only is the district court unfamiliar with German law, were it to hear the case it would be required to translate a great deal of that law from the German language, with all the inaccuracy and delay that such a project would necessarily entail.").
3. Burden on Local Courts and Juries, Congestion, and Costs of Resolving a Dispute Unrelated to a Particular Forum .
The remaining public interest factors " all relate to the effects of hearing the case on the respective judicial systems." Carijano, 643 F.3d at 1232. Here, plaintiff concedes that this case " will add an incremental burden to the Court and to juries, and will add to the already overwhelming congestion of the courts, " but contends that the balance of the factors weighs in favor of the Central District because of this forum's " strong interest" in resolving this dispute. (See Opp. at 25). However, as discussed above, see supra at § II.B.1., this district does not have a strong interest in resolving this dispute. Switzerland, which has been investigating plaintiff's allegations for three years, (see SAC at ¶ 35), has a much stronger interest. See supra at § II.B.1.; see also Vivendi SA v. T-Mobile USA Inc., 586 F.3d 689, 691 & 696 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming district court's dismissal in light of the " burden on local courts and juries unconnected to the case and the costs of resolving a dispute unrelated to the forum" where French corporation brought RICO claims against German corporation and Polish individual); LaSala, 510 F.Supp.2d at 229 (" [T]he argument that dollar transfers through banks in the United States creates a strong public interest in favor of the United States has been rejected by courts in [the Second] Circuit."); Lan Assocs., 1997 WL 458753, at *6 (rejecting the burden of international financial disputes having no real substantive, local link). Under the circumstances, the court sees no cause to burden Central District jurors with this litigation given that most of the allegedly wrongful conduct took place in Kazakhstan and Switzerland. (See SAC at ¶ ¶ 21-29, 38-50). Also, plaintiff is a city in Kazakhstan and the majority of the Individual Defendants are Kazakh citizens residing in Switzerland. ( See id. at ¶ ¶ 7, 9, 11). In short, the court concludes that the weight of these public interest factors support dismissal. See Loya, 583 F.3d at 665 (affirming dismissal where district court found " no cause to burden Washington jurors with this litigation given that most of the allegedly wrongful conduct took place in Mexico and among non-Washington defendants"); Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1147 (" Because the local interest in this lawsuit is comparatively low, the citizens of Arizona should not be forced to bear the burden of this dispute."); Vivendi SA, 586 F.3d at 696 (" The burden on local courts and juries unconnected to the case and the costs of resolving a dispute unrelated to the forum also favor dismissal."); see also Dibdin, 2013 WL 327324, at *7 (" The Central District of California has a very demanding docket, with many thousands of cases brought each year.").
CONCLUSION
When considered together, the court finds that the balance of private and public factors weigh in favor of dismissal. Switzerland is not just an adequate forum, but a more appropriate and convenient one, given the particular facts and circumstances of this case, and the private and public interest factors strongly favor litigating this case there. While the court is sympathetic to plaintiff's contention that litigating certain aspects of its case may be more convenient in this district, that relatively minor convenience does not outweigh the alleged activities' fundamentally foreign nature and the fact that the evidence and witnesses required to prove those allegations are located primarily in Kazakhstan and Switzerland. The court's conclusion is reinforced by the lesser degree of deference due the forum choice of a plaintiff that is a foreign city. Thus, the court concludes, in its discretion, that this is a proper case for the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
This Order is not intended for publication. Nor is it intended to be included in or submitted to any online service such as Westlaw or Lexis.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT Moving Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Based on Forum Non Conveniens (Document No. 59) is granted. The case is dismissed without prejudice. Judgment shall be entered accordingly.