Lim v. Siam Lim
- James Donato
- 3:22-cv-04605
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Lim v. Siam Lim, Judge Donato ordered the self-represented plaintiff to explain jurisdiction and joinder before possible dismissal, severance, or transfer.
Khor Chin Lim and the defendants located in Singapore, Illinois, and Ohio were directly affected. The California defendants and Lim’s proposed additional defendants were also implicated by the court’s questions about joinder and jurisdiction.
What happened
Khor Chin Lim sued Allison Meow Siam Lim and many other defendants, alleging an inheritance dispute and a separate series of events involving an Illinois criminal case. The plaintiff, who represented himself, asserted claims including fraud, conversion, conspiracy, emotional distress, and a civil-rights claim under federal law.
The court questioned whether it had authority over the defendants in Singapore, Illinois, and Ohio and whether the defendants were properly joined in one case. The court said the allegations appeared to describe two unrelated groups of events and that the plaintiff’s broad conspiracy allegations did not adequately show that the out-of-state defendants had sufficient connections with California.
In an order signed by Judge Donato, the court ordered the plaintiff to explain by September 29, 2022, why the court could exercise jurisdiction, why the defendants were properly joined, and why the claims against the out-of-state defendants should not be dismissed, separated, or transferred. The court held the plaintiff’s motions to add defendants in abeyance and did not yet dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Lim v. Siam Lim · No. 3:22-cv-04605
- James Donato
- Aug. 30, 2022
Background
Khor Chin Lim filed the complaint on August 9, 2022, paid the filing fee, and later submitted a proposed first amended complaint. Because the Clerk’s Office did not process that filing due to a filing error, the court evaluated the first amended complaint as the operative pleading for purposes of this order. Lim then filed two motions seeking permission to file a second amended complaint adding defendants. The court held those motions in abeyance.
Lim named defendants in several locations. Allison Meow Siam Lim and Chong Kwan Tan were identified as individuals in Redwood City, California. Other defendants were identified as individuals in Singapore, public officials and public entities in Illinois, and an individual in Ohio. Lim was identified as a Malaysian citizen living in Wisconsin.
The complaint alleged a broad “hub-and-spoke conspiracy,” but the court construed the allegations as describing two apparently separate sets of events. The first involved Lim’s claim that he was entitled to part of an estate connected to real property in Malaysia and that Allison Lim and Tan took his share and benefited from property in Redwood City. The second involved alleged “persecutions,” including events related to a former teacher in Wisconsin and an Illinois criminal investigation, prosecution, and incarceration. The complaint asserted claims including breach of fiduciary duty, an accounting, conversion, fraud and deceit, conspiracy to defraud, unjust enrichment, aiding and abetting, intentional infliction of emotional distress, a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a request to set aside the Illinois criminal judgment.
Jurisdiction and Joinder Concerns
The court questioned whether it could exercise personal jurisdiction—the court’s authority over a particular defendant—over the Singapore, Illinois, and Ohio defendants. It explained that due process generally requires a nonresident defendant to have sufficient “minimum contacts” with the forum and that exercising jurisdiction must be consistent with fair play and substantial justice.
The court also questioned whether all the defendants could properly be joined in one case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 permits defendants to be joined when the claims arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions and share a common legal or factual question. The court noted that Rule 21 allows a court to add or drop parties or separate claims, and that claims against defendants over whom the court lacks jurisdiction may, in appropriate circumstances, be separated and transferred to courts where jurisdiction is proper.
The court found Lim’s explanation for jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendants inadequate. Lim asserted generally that those defendants aided a San Mateo County lawsuit and were co-conspirators in illegal acts taken against him in California, but the court said those assertions did not establish sufficient contacts with California. The court also found that the inheritance allegations and the allegations concerning the Illinois criminal case did not appear to arise from the same transaction or occurrence. It described the conspiracy allegations connecting them as vague and insufficient.
Order
The court ordered Lim to show in writing why: (1) the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over each Singapore, Illinois, and Ohio defendant; (2) the California, Singapore, Illinois, and Ohio defendants were properly joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19; and (3) the claims against the Singapore, Illinois, and Ohio defendants should not be dismissed or, alternatively, severed and transferred as separate actions to courts with proper jurisdiction.
The response was due by September 29, 2022. The court warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The court did not dismiss the action in this order. It held the motions for leave to file the second amended complaint in abeyance and reminded Lim that any newly added defendants would have to fall within the court’s jurisdiction.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.