United States District Court, D. Nevada
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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
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).
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
Motion to Remand
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. §
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
Motion for Summary Judgment
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).