Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ning Bo Free Trade Zone Jiayu Chunhua Venture Investment Partnership (Limited Partnership) sued Ying Wu and other defendants. Wu moved to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens and lack of personal jurisdiction, or alternatively to compel arbitration. The court began with personal jurisdiction. It explained that the plaintiff bore the burden of making a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts, with disputed facts resolved in the plaintiff's favor. Because the claims did not relate to Wu's California contacts, only general jurisdiction could support the suit against him, and the plaintiff invoked domicile as the sole basis. The order referred to an earlier decision denying remand for the underlying factual background but did not restate that background here.
Wu declared that he was a Chinese citizen who primarily lived in China and did not live in California. He described his one California property as a summer house and investment property, said he stayed there only a few months each year, reported spending two months in California that year, and stated that he was then in China and planned possibly one additional month in the United States. The plaintiff countered with Wu's 2025 complaint in an unrelated state-court action, where he had alleged that he was a California resident and conducted business in California. Wu's supplemental reply declaration explained that he understood that statement to describe his summer house and part-year stays. The court did not consider additional facts in that filing because Wu had not explained why they could not accompany his opening papers.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the facts necessary for domicile-based general jurisdiction. Domicile requires physical presence together with an intention to remain indefinitely. Although a person may have several residences simultaneously, the intent requirement permits only one domicile at a time, and residence in one place does not necessarily establish domicile there. Against that standard, Wu's earlier allegation of California residence did not supply the required prima facie showing of his intent to remain in California indefinitely. The court therefore found the plaintiff's reliance on the unrelated complaint unavailing, even while resolving disputed facts in the plaintiff's favor for the jurisdictional inquiry.
The court granted Wu's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed all claims against him. It expressly did not address his additional arguments, so the order contains no ruling on forum non conveniens or arbitration. It separately granted the plaintiff's unopposed request to take judicial notice of the state-court exhibit, recognizing that courts may notice proceedings in other courts. The order does not state that the dismissal is with prejudice or specify leave to amend, and its dismissal language is confined to Wu rather than the other defendants.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant's seasonal use of a California summer house does not by itself establish the indefinite intent to remain required for California domicile.
- An allegation of residence in an unrelated pleading is not equivalent to proof of domicile because residence and domicile are legally distinct.
- The plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts after a personal-jurisdiction challenge, although disputed facts are resolved in the plaintiff's favor.
- A court may refuse to consider new evidence first presented with a reply when the moving party does not explain why it was omitted from the opening papers.
- The dismissal resolved only the claims against Wu and left his forum non conveniens and arbitration arguments undecided.
Why It Matters
The order applies the distinction between residence and domicile to a foreign citizen's seasonal California property use. It shows that ownership, part-year presence, and a prior description of oneself as a resident do not necessarily satisfy the plaintiff's burden to show an intention to remain indefinitely. The analysis is tied to general jurisdiction because the claims were unrelated to Wu's California contacts.
The decision also separates evidentiary notice from jurisdictional proof: the court took judicial notice of the other court proceeding but found its residence allegation insufficient to establish domicile. Its treatment of the supplemental declaration further underscores the risk of withholding relevant jurisdictional evidence until reply.