1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KHOR CHIN LIM, Case No. 22-cv-04605-DMR

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v.

10 ALLISON MEOW SIAM LIM, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 On August 9, 2022, self-represented Plaintiff Khor Chin Lim filed his complaint and paid 14 the $402 filing fee. [Docket No. 1.] On August 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint 15 (“FAC”), which the Clerk’s office did not process due to a filing error and instructed Plaintiff to 16 re-file. [Docket No. 9.] Instead of re-filing the FAC, on August 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed two ex 17 parte motions for leave to file a second amended complaint (“SAC”) that would add additional 18 defendants. [Docket No. 12, 14.] Because the FAC is most recent pleading that does not require 19 leave to file, the court evaluates the FAC for purposes of this order.1 20 Plaintiff names multiple Defendants located in the United States and abroad.2 Defendants 21 Allison Meow Siam Lim and Chong Kwan Tan are individuals located in Redwood City, 22 California (“California Defendants”). FAC ¶¶ 3-4. Three Defendants are individuals living in 23 1 According to Plaintiff’s declarations filed in support of both ex parte motions, the amendments 24 in the SAC only seek to add new defendants and update the summons to change the address of one 25 existing Defendant; they do not seek to add any new claims. [Docket Nos. 12-2, 14-2.] The proposed SAC filed at Docket Nos. 12 and 14 does not appear to substantively change the factual 26 allegations. Accordingly, the court determines that the proposed SAC does not change the basis for this order to show cause. 27 2 Plaintiff has requested that the Clerk serve the papers on particular Defendants located in 1 Singapore (“Singapore Defendants”). Id. ¶¶ 4-6. Twenty-four Defendants are public officials and 2 public entities in Illinois, including the State of Illinois, City of Chicago, Cook County, the Illinois 3 Supreme Court, current and former prosecutors, police officers, and public defenders, among 4 others (“Illinois Defendants”). Id. ¶¶ 7-31. One Defendant is an individual living in North 5 Ridgeville, Ohio (“Ohio Defendant”). Id. ¶ 30. Plaintiff is a Malaysian citizen living in 6 Janesville, Wisconsin. Id. ¶¶ 1, 41. 7 The FAC is confusing and difficult to follow. Plaintiff claims that all Defendants engaged 8 in a “hub-and-spoke conspiracy,” with two of the Singapore Defendants acting as the “hub” with 9 the remaining Defendants acting as the “spokes.” FAC ¶ 32. Liberally construed, the FAC details 10 two set of events that appear to be unconnected. In the first set, Plaintiff contends that he is an 11 heir to a large estate, which included parcels of real property in Malaysia, but that he never 12 received his share of the inheritance. Compl. at 11-36. Instead, Defendant Allison Lim, who is 13 Plaintiff’s sister and also an heir to the estate, and Defendant Tan fraudulently usurped Plaintiff’s 14 share and used the money to purchase property, including a property in Redwood City, California. 15 Lim also never provided Plaintiff with proceeds from selling properties in the estate in Malaysia 16 and has unjustly benefited from the appreciation of the Redwood City property. Plaintiff also 17 refers to a civil case in San Mateo County Superior Court but does not explain what that case is 18 about. 19 In the second set of events, Plaintiff confusingly describes a series of “persecutions” 20 against him by the Singapore Defendants. FAC at 36-62. These events range from bad grades he 21 received from the Ohio Defendant when he taught Plaintiff in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1996, to a 22 false criminal investigation and prosecution against him in Illinois state court, for which Plaintiff 23 was found unfit to stand for trial and was sentenced to thirty months of incarceration. The FAC 24 alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, an accounting of the estate, conversion, fraud and deceit, conspiracy to defraud, unjust enrichment, aiding and abetting, intentional infliction of 25 emotional distress,

, and to set aside the criminal judgment against him in 26 Illinois. These claims are alleged on various bases against different Defendants. Plaintiff also 27 1 police and court records, and correspondence with third parties including the California Law 2 Review and the Stanford Law Review. 3 Having liberally construed Plaintiff’s papers, the court questions whether it may exercise 4 personal jurisdiction over the Singapore, Illinois, and Ohio Defendants, and whether those 5 Defendants are properly joined. “A district court’s exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident 6 defendant comports with due process when the defendant has at least ‘minimum contacts’ with the 7 forum and subjecting the defendant to an action in that forum would ‘not offend traditional notions 8 of fair play and substantial justice.’” Ayla, LLC v. Alya Skin Pty. Ltd.,

, 979 (9th Cir. 9 2021) (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington,

(1945)). Also, under Federal 10 Rule of Civil Procedure 21, the court may, at any time and upon just terms, add or drop a party or 11 sever claims against a party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Courts may sever parties who are not properly 12 joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, which governs permissive joinder of parties, “so 13 long as no substantial right will be prejudiced by the severance.” Coughlin v. Rogers,

1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1997). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (allowing permissive joinder of 15 defendants if “(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative 16 with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or 17 occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the 18 action.”). District courts are vested with broad discretion in deciding whether to grant severance. 19 Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co.,

(9th Cir. 2000). 20 Under

, if a district court “finds that there is a want of jurisdiction, the 21 court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such court 22 (or, for cases within the jurisdiction of the United States Tax Court, to that court) in which the 23 action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed.” A court may sever 24 claims against misjoined defendants over which the court lacks personal jurisdiction and, in the interests of justice, transfer the claims to a district court where jurisdiction is proper. See Johnson 25 v. Mitchell, No. CV-S-10-1968,

(E.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2012); Pamplona ex rel. 26 Pamplona v. Hernandez, No. 08CV2205,

(S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2009). “When 27 1 failure to transfer would prejudice the litigant, whether the litigant filed the original action in good 2 faith, and other equitable factors.” Cruz-Aguilera v. ILN.S.,

, 1074 (9th Cir. 2001). 3 Plaintiff does not explain why personal jurisdiction over the Singapore, Illinois, and Ohio 4 || Defendants is proper in California. He asserts in conclusory fashion that the Defendants aided and 5 abetted in the civil lawsuit in San Mateo County and are liable as co-conspirators for illegal acts 6 || taken against him in California. Compl. at 9-10. This assertion is inadequate to establish that the 7 Singapore, Illinois, and Ohio Defendants’ have minimum contacts with California. Moreover, 8 || Plaintiffs factual allegations appear to describe two wholly distinct sets of events—one involving g || his claims to the inheritance, and the other involving a criminal case against him in Illinois. These 10 || events do not appear to arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. Plaintiff's assertions that 11 they are all connected to a vast conspiracy against him are vague, fanciful, and insufficient. 12 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause in writing why (1) this court may exercise

13 personal jurisdiction over each of the Singapore, Illinois, and Ohio Defendants; (2) why the 14 || California, Singapore, Illinois, and Ohio Defendants are properly joined under Federal Rule of

15 Civil Procedure 19; and (3) why the court should not dismiss or, alternatively, sever the claims A 16 against the Singapore, Illinois, and Ohio Defendants and transfer those claims as separate actions

3 17 to respective courts with proper jurisdiction. Plaintiff must file his response within 30 □□□□□□□□□□ 1g || by September 29, 2022. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this action for failure to 19 || prosecute.” AES DISTR] CP EY £0 20 □□ □□ R) 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. I 50 ORDERED | □□ 22 Dated: August 30, 2022 5 \" < > □ 23 v7 ff AA RV oO} (agree 24 Oy SisieesPterstrate Judge □□ ay a) 25 iy OS 26 DISTRICS 97 || > The court holds Plaintiff's motions for leave to file the SAC in abeyance until after Plaintiff files his response to this order. Plaintiff is reminded, however, that any new defendants added to the 28 || complaint must fall within the court’s jurisdiction.