settlement agreement resolved all of Ms. Ito’s claims arising out of the accident itself, but did not purport to settle Ms. Ito’s claims arising out of Tokio Marine’s violation of the 1996 agreement. Pet. App. 9a.
In October 2003, Ms. Ito sued Tokio Marine in California state court, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, novation, and bad faith. Pet. App. 8a. Ms. Ito sought injunctive relief and damages. Tokio Marine removed Ms. Ito’s complaint to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “District Court”) on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), 1332(a)(1).
Each of the claims alleged in the complaint filed in October 2003 centers on Tokio Marine’s failure, under the 1996 agreement, to pay the expenses Ms. Ito incurred in California. These claims do not relate to the earlier car accident.
In the District Court, Tokio Marine moved to dismiss Ms. Ito’s complaint based on forum non conveniens. Due to its misunderstanding of Ms. Ito’s claims, and without giving any deference to Ms. Ito’s choice of forum, the District Court granted Tokio Marine’s motion to dismiss. Pet. App. 17a. Ms. Ito appealed the District Court’s order to the Ninth Circuit, which reversed. Pet. App. 2a. The Ninth Circuit denied Tokio Marine’s petition for rehearing. Pet. App. 20a.