____________________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:19-cv-01694-JLS-KES Date: March 24, 2020 Title: Yasamin Younesi v. Mohammad Sadoughi et al.

Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Terry Guerrero N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

DISMISSAL

In this action, Plaintiff Yasamin Younesi brings nine state-law tort claims against Defendants Mohammad Sadoughi and Masoomeh Djodeir. (See FAC, Doc. 27.) Each of those claims, at its heart, arises from Plaintiff’s allegation that Mr. Sadoughi “fraudulently induced Plaintiff’s father, Mr. Hamid Mohammadi Jamali (‘Mr. Jamali’), to invest in [Mr. Sadoughi’s] company, Greenland Farms, Inc. (‘Greenland’)” in order to obtain immigration benefits for Mr. Jamali’s family. (Id. ¶ 2.) The FAC states:

Plaintiff, Ms. Yasamin Younesi, is a resident of [the] state of Maryland. She is the daughter of Mr. [] Jamali. Mr. Jamali assigned his rights relating to the facts and claims in this complaint to Plaintiff.

(Id. ¶ 6.) But “it is well settled in [California] that a purely tort claim is not assignable.” Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Nakano, 12 Cal. 2d 711, 713 (1939); see also Pony v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 433 F.3d 1138, 1143 (9th Cir. 2006); Franklin v. Franklin, 67 Cal. App. 2d 717, 726 (1945) (“Wrongs done to the person . . . constitute the exception to the general rule that choses in action are assignable.”); Goodley v. Wank & Wank, Inc., 62 Cal. App. 3d 389, 398 (Ct. App. 1976) (“assignment of a bare right to complain of fraud is contrary to public policy”). ____________________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:19-cv-01694-JLS-KES Date: March 24, 2020 Title: Yasamin Younesi v. Mohammad Sadoughi et al. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause, in writing, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, why this case should not be dismissed owing to her lack of standing to bring the claims presently asserted. Cf. B.C. v. Plumas Unified Sch. Dist., 192 F.3d 1260, 1264 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[F]ederal courts are required sua sponte to examine jurisdictional issues such as standing.”). Within seven (7) days thereafter, Defendants may file a responsive brief on the issue. There shall be no further briefing on the matter, and the parties’ briefs shall not exceed ten (10) pages. The hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC, currently set for March 27, 2020, at 10:30 a.m. is VACATED. The Court will re-set the Motion for hearing if necessary.

Initials of Preparer: tg