Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Cynthia Kent, et al. v. American Medical Systems
March 12, 2012
CYNTHIA KENT, ET AL.
AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable George H. King, U. S. District Judge
Presiding: The Honorable GEORGE H. KING, U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Beatrice Herrera N/A N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendant:
Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause
On February 24, 2012, Plaintiffs Cynthia Kent and Dan Kent (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed a Complaint in this Court asserting negligence and product liability claims against Defendant American Medical Systems, Inc. ("Defendant" or "AMS"). The Complaint fails to establish why venue is proper in the Central District of California.
Plaintiffs assert that "[v]enue is proper in this District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction within this District." (Compl. ¶ 2). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil action founded solely on diversity of citizenship may only be brought in "(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . ; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action."
Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to establish that venue is proper in this district under § 1391(b)(1) because Plaintiffs provide no information demonstrating that Defendant "resides" in this district. Section 1391(c)(2) provides that a corporate defendant*fn1 like AMS "shall be deemed to reside . . . in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question." Plaintiffs state that we have personal jurisdiction over Defendant because "Defendant placed a defective product in the stream of commerce and that product caused personal injury to Plaintiff." (Compl. ¶ 2). Plaintiffs do not provide any information whatsoever supporting their bare assertion that Defendant would ever be subject to personal jurisdiction within this district, let alone subject to personal jurisdiction here "with respect to [this] civil action" as § 1391(c)(2) requires.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. CV 12-1612-GHK (JCGx)
Buy This Entire Record For