Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kal-Mor-USA, LLC v. Omni Financial LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 3, 2018

KAL-MOR-USA, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
OMNI FINANCIAL LLC; FIRST 100 LLC, Defendants.

          ORDER

          RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Before this Court comes Plaintiff Kal-Mor-USA, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Kal-Mor”)'s Motion to Remand to State Court, (ECF No. 11) and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14). For the reasons stated below, the Court defers judgment on Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and denies without prejudice Plaintiff's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff filed its Complaint in state court on June 19, 2017. (ECF No. 1-1). Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract, against Defendant First 100 LLC (“First 100”); (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, against First 100; (3) negligent misrepresentation, against First 100; (4) declaratory relief, against all Defendants; (5) quiet title, against all Defendants; (6) unjust enrichment, against Defendant Omni Financial LLC (“Omni”); (7) conversion, against Omni; (8) slander of title, against Omni; (9) intentional interference with contractual relations, against Omni; and (10) injunctive relief, against Omni. Omni filed a Petition for Removal before this Court on August 28, 2017. (ECF No. 1). Omni contends that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction “because this Court retained jurisdiction to hear any further proceedings between these parties when a prior action [First 100 LLC v. Omni Financial et al., No. 2:16-cv-00099] involving these same parties was dismissed pursuant to stipulation.” (ECF No. 1 at 2). Omni also contends that the Court had diversity jurisdiction over the prior action, and that the Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § § 1332(a), 1441(a), and 1446. On September 13, 2017, Omni filed its Statement of Removal. (ECF No. 7). Omni asserted the same bases for jurisdiction. On September 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 11). Attached to the Motion to Remand are several exhibits, including an Acceptance of Service on behalf of First 100, dated July 6, 2017 (ECF No. 11 at 16) and an Acceptance of Service on behalf of Omni, dated August 6, 2017 (ECF No. 11 at 18). Omni filed a Response on October 12, 2017. (ECF No. 17). Plaintiff filed its Reply on October 20, 2017. (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on October 1, 2017. (ECF No. 14). Omni filed its Response on October 25, 2017. (ECF No. 20). On November 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed its Reply. (ECF No. 21).

         This case was transferred to this Court on September 25, 2017, as the transferring judge and the undersigned judge found that there existed common questions of law or fact shared with the instant matter and a prior case, First 100 LLC v. Omni Financial et al., No. 2:16-cv-0099-RFB-CWH (“First 100”). A third related action, Kal-Mor-USA, LLC v. Omni Financial, LLC et al., No. 2:16-cv-00109-RFB-GWF (“Kal-Mor”) was also previously before this Court. In Kal-Mor, the Court entered an Order granting a Stipulated Judgment, the content of which is not before the Court in this matter. (2:16-cv-00109-RFB-GWF, ECF No. 58). The Court also entered an Order granting a Stipulated Judgment in First 100, which referred to the Kal-Mor action and addressed Plaintiff as a party to the Stipulated Judgment. (2:16-cv-0099-RFB-CWH, ECF No. 240). The Court held a hearing on these motions on July 2, 2018, and took the matter under submission.

         III. LEGAL STANDARDS

         A. Motion to Remand

         28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) grants district courts original jurisdiction over actions where the matter in controversy is greater than $75, 000, provided there is complete diversity. A defendant may remove to federal court a case initially filed in state court if the federal court would have original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). When a case is removed solely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), all defendants that have been properly joined and served must either join in, or consent to, removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2).

         “Removal and subject matter jurisdiction statutes are strictly construed, and a defendant seeking removal has the burden to establish that removal is proper and any doubt is resolved against removability.” Hawaii ex rel. Louie v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A., 761 F.3d 1027, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation and quotation marks omitted). A federal court should remand a case to state court if any doubt exists as to the right to removal. Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (footnote omitted).

         B. Motion for Summary Judgment

         Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); accord Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). When considering the propriety of summary judgment, the court views all facts and draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim, 747 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir. 2014). If the movant has carried its burden, the non-moving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts . . . .Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).

         IV. DISCUSSION

         A. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.