United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is Helping Hands Wellness Center, Inc.'s
(“HHWC”) emergency motion to remand. (ECF No. 5).
Defendants Lusine Danayan and Jack Danayan
(“defendants”) responded. (ECF No. 12). HHWC did
before the court is Helping Hand's motion for preliminary
injunction. (ECF No. 6). Defendants filed a response. (ECF
No. 15). HHWC did not reply.
medical cannabis cultivation and production operation in
North Las Vegas licensed under state law, received a
confidential offer for the sale of its cannabis cultivation
and production assets from a buyer. (ECF No. 5 at 2). HHWC
discussed the offer with defendants, who initially consented
to the terms of the sale. Id. HHWC then entered into
a letter of intent with the buyer. Id. Before the
execution of the sale agreement, however, a dispute between
defendants and HHWC arose. Id. at 2-3.
and HHWC negotiated for several months, and HHWC alleges that
the parties “reached an agreement on all material terms
resolving their dispute.” Id. at 3. The
parties drafted a settlement and shareholder interest
purchase agreement whereby HHWC would purchase Lusine's
interest, Lusine would resign as an officer of HHWC, and HHWC
would execute five (5) promissory notes and a security
agreement to repay Lusine. Id. However, defendants
assert that the parties “were ultimately unable to
reach an agreement as to the terms of the sell [sic], such as
the amount to be paid, how that amount was to be paid, and
the backed security interest should [HHWC] default.”
(ECF No. 15 at 8).
filed suit in state court to enforce the settlement and
shareholder interest purchase agreement, and the defendants
timely removed. (ECF No. 1).
Subject matter jurisdiction
to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “any civil action brought
in a State court of which the district courts of the United
States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the
defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the
United States for the district and division embracing the
place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. §
1441(a). “A federal court is presumed to lack
jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary
affirmatively appears.” Stock West, Inc. v.
Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation, 873 F.2d
1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989).
notice of removability, a defendant has thirty days to remove
a case to federal court once he knows or should have known
that the case was removable. Durham v. Lockheed Martin
Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1250 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing 28
U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)). Defendants are not charged with
notice of removability “until they've received a
paper that gives them enough information to remove.”
Id. at 1251.
“the ‘thirty day time period [for removal] . . .
starts to run from defendant's receipt of the initial
pleading only when that pleading affirmatively reveals on its
face' the facts necessary for federal court
jurisdiction.” Id. at 1250 (quoting Harris
v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 425 F.3d 689, 690-91
(9th Cir. 2005) (alterations in original)). “Otherwise,
the thirty-day clock doesn't begin ticking until a
defendant receives ‘a copy of an amended pleading,
motion, order or other paper' from which it can determine
that the case is removable. Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C.
plaintiff may challenge removal by timely filing a motion to
remand. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). On a motion to remand, the
removing defendant faces a strong presumption against
removal, and bears the burden of establishing that removal is
proper. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102
F.3d 398, 403-04 (9th Cir. 1996); Gaus v. Miles,
Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992).
court must consider the following elements in determining
whether to issue a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction: (1) a likelihood of success on the
merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable injury if preliminary
relief is not granted; (3) balance of hardships; and (4)
advancement of the public interest. Winter v.
N.R.D.C.,555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249
(2008); Stanley v. Univ. of S California, 13 ...