## Facts

- A Japanese publisher printed and distributed in Japan a magazine article alleging that an individual had murdered his wife.
- The individual was domiciled in California at the relevant time and claimed the allegation was false and defamatory.
- The individual filed a libel damages action against the publisher in California based on the article.
- The publisher then filed suit in the Tokyo District Court seeking a declaratory judgment that it owed no damages liability to the individual for the publication.
- The individual appeared in the Japanese proceeding and moved to dismiss, arguing the Tokyo District Court lacked international jurisdiction over a nonresident foreign defendant.
- The Tokyo District Court addressed only jurisdiction and the propriety of entertaining the declaratory action, not the merits of defamation.

## Issues

1. Whether a Japanese court has international jurisdiction over a California-domiciled defendant in a Japanese declaratory action seeking a declaration of non-liability for alleged defamation published in Japan.
2. Whether a negative declaratory action filed in Japan is procedurally proper when it effectively counters or preempts an already-pending foreign damages action brought by the defendant in his home forum.

## Decision

- The Tokyo District Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
- The court dismissed the publisher’s declaratory judgment action for lack of international jurisdiction over the California-domiciled defendant.

## Legal Principles

- In the absence of a comprehensive codified jurisdiction statute at the time, international jurisdiction was assessed by reference to domestic venue concepts and general considerations of fairness, predictability, and the dispute’s connection to Japan.
- A defendant’s foreign domicile is a major factor weighing against jurisdiction, particularly where compelling litigation in Japan would impose substantial burden and would be difficult to justify as foreseeable.
- A negative declaratory action may be disfavored when its main practical function is to weaken or offset pending foreign litigation, rather than to resolve an independent dispute for which Japan is the appropriate forum.
- The existence of parallel foreign proceedings can weigh against Japanese jurisdiction due to the risk of inconsistent outcomes and concerns for orderly coordination between forums.

## Conclusion

The Tokyo District Court declined to exercise international jurisdiction over a California-domiciled defendant and dismissed a Japanese publisher’s negative declaratory action seeking a declaration of non-liability for an allegedly defamatory publication, emphasizing insufficient jurisdictional justification and the procedural posture in light of pending foreign litigation.


K.K. Bungei Shunjū Co. v. Miyata, Hanrei Jihō (No. 1338) 121 (Tokyo Dist. Ct. 1989)