United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE
DONNA
M. RYU JUDGE.
Plaintiffs
Brook Gordon Cummings and Novella Cummings filed this
personal injury action against the Islamic Republic of Iran
(“Iran”) pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act (“FSIA”). The FSIA provides that
“a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction
of the courts of the United States and of the States except
as provided in sections 1605 to 1607 of this chapter.”
28 U.S.C. § 1604. Under FSIA's terrorism exception,
a foreign state shall not be immune from suit in any case
“in which money damages are sought against a foreign
state for personal injury or death that was caused by an act
of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage
taking, or the provision of material support or resources for
such an act . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(1). A
“‘foreign state' . . .includes a political
subdivision of a foreign state or an agency or
instrumentality of a foreign state as defined in [28 U.S.C.
§ 1603(b).]” 28 U.S.C. § 1603(a). Further, 28
U.S.C. § 1605A(c) provides United States nationals and
other enumerated individuals with a private right of action
against “[a] foreign state that is or was a state
sponsor of terrorism . . . for personal injury or death
caused by acts described in [28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(1)] .
. . .”
The
FSIA has its own venue provision. It provides that a civil
action under the FSIA may be brought
(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.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(f).
In this
action, Plaintiffs sue Iran, a foreign state. As it appears
that the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia is the proper venue for this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1391(f)(4), on November 15, 2019, the court
ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why this action should not
be transferred to the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia. [Docket No. 18.]
Plaintiffs
timely filed a response to the Order to Show Cause. [Docket
No. 20 (Response).] In their response, they argue that that
venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. §
1391(f)(3), which states that “a civil action against a
foreign state as defined in [28 U.S.C. § 1603(a)] may be
brought . . . 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” 28
U.S.C. § 1603(b). 28 U.S.C. § 1391(f)(3). In turn,
28 U.S.C. § 1603(b) provides that
(b) An “agency or instrumentality of a foreign
state” means any entity--
(1) which is a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise,
and
(2) which is an organ of a foreign state or political
subdivision thereof, or a majority of whose shares or other
ownership interest is owned by a foreign state or political
subdivision thereof, and
(3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United
States as defined in section 1332(c) and (e) of this title,
nor created ...