United States District Court, S.D. California
JORDAN WARMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE, Defendant.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
LARRY ALAN BURNS, District Judge.
Plaintiff Jordan Warman is a Canadian citizen residing in Ontario, Canada. (Docket no. 1, ¶ 8.) He filed this putative class action against the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), alleged to be a New York corporation with its headquarters in Washington, D.C. ( Id., ¶ 4.) Warman brings claims under both the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and New York state law, and alleges he worked in Washington, D.C., Maryland, and New Jersey when his claims arose. ( Id., ¶ 8.) The complaint's sole allegation concerning jurisdiction merely says "Venue in this Court is proper because ANSI regularly conducts business and employs employees throughout the country, including California." ( Id., ¶ 7.) There is no allegation, however, that any class member's claim arose in this District, or even in California. Thus, the Court ordered Plaintiff Jordan Warman to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for improper venue. (Docket no. 5.) In response, Warman contends that venue is proper because it is likely that numerous unnamed class members are currently working for ANSI in the Southern District of California. (Docket no. 7.) He explains
To accomplish [its] mission, ANSI employs assessors, to accredit and assess [Standard Developing Organizations]'s throughout the United States including in the Southern District of California. Discovery has not yet been conducted but it is likely that there are numerous assessors who reside and are currently working in the Southern District of California. Based on the fact that ANSI's assessors, many of whom are putative class members, are consistently in the Southern District of California the minimum contacts analysis is more than satisfied because ANSI regulates Southern District businesses and the organization has availed itself to the laws of California.
( Id. at 3.)
A civil action may be brought in any of the following:
(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 a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; 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.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). For the purposes of the venue statute, entity defendants are "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." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2).
B. Personal Jurisdiction
Personal jurisdiction is divided into two categories-general and specific. Martinez v. Aero Caribbean, 764 F.3d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir. 2014). "[T]he plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the court has jurisdiction. In re W. States Wholesale ...