## Facts

- Masaki Bussan K.K. (Masaki Bussan), a Japanese corporation, manufactured and sold a noodle-making machine to a United States buyer.
- The sale was arranged through a California intermediary, Nanka Seimen Company (Nanka Seimen), which had no offices in Japan.
- An employee of the U.S. buyer was injured while using the machine in the United States.
- The employee filed a product-defect tort action in California against both Masaki Bussan and Nanka Seimen, alleging the machine was defective.
- After the employee’s California suit was filed, Nanka Seimen sued Masaki Bussan in California seeking indemnification if Nanka Seimen were required to compensate the employee.
- While the California actions were pending and already in considerably advanced stages, Masaki Bussan filed suit in Japan seeking declaratory judgments that it was not liable to Nanka Seimen (including on indemnity) and not liable to the injured employee.
- In the Japanese declaratory action against Nanka Seimen, Nanka Seimen moved to dismiss.

## Issues

1. Should a Japanese court dismiss a negative declaratory-judgment action when substantially overlapping foreign proceedings involving the same underlying dispute are already pending and considerably advanced?
2. In assessing whether declaratory relief is appropriate, may the court consider the risk of duplicative litigation and inconsistent outcomes, and the burden on a foreign defendant with no offices in Japan?

## Decision

- The Tokyo District Court granted Nanka Seimen’s motion to dismiss Masaki Bussan’s declaratory-judgment action against Nanka Seimen.
- The court treated the Japanese declaratory action as duplicating the issues already being litigated in the California tort and indemnity proceedings, which were far along by the time the Japanese case was filed.
- In light of the pending, advanced California litigation addressing the same liability and indemnity questions, the court declined to proceed with the Japanese declaratory action.

## Legal Principles

- A declaratory-judgment action requires a concrete, present need for a declaration, and may be dismissed when a declaration would not meaningfully resolve the dispute.
- When parallel foreign litigation concerning the same underlying controversy is already pending and well advanced, a Japanese court may dismiss a later-filed declaratory action to avoid repetitive proceedings and the possibility of conflicting determinations.
- In deciding whether declaratory relief is suitable, the court may weigh fairness and case-management concerns, including the practical burden on a defendant that lacks an operational presence in Japan.

## Conclusion

Masaki Bussan K.K. v. Nanka Seimen Company stands for the Tokyo District Court’s refusal to entertain a later-filed Japanese declaratory action that mirrored ongoing California tort and indemnity litigation arising from a U.S. workplace injury, with the court dismissing the Japanese suit against the California intermediary because the foreign proceedings were already considerably advanced and a Japanese declaration would have duplicated the dispute.


Masaki Bussan K.K. v. Nanka Seimen Company, Hanrei Jihō (No. 1390) 98 (1991)