Advanced Cleanup Technologies, Inc. v. BP America, Inc. et al

Filing 79

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) CLAIMANT CUDA ENTERPRISES, INC. MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION THAT CARMEN M. BATRIZ d/b/a CMB PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HAS NO LIEN AGAINST THE RECOVERY IN THIS ACTION by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Cuda and Batriz's liens arise fr om state court actions that are factually unrelated to the underlying action between ACT and BP. Therefore, they are not part of the same case or controversy as the underlying action, and this Court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over Cuda and Batriz's state law claims. Cuda Enterprises, Inc.'s motion seeking a determination that claimant Batriz has no lien against the recovery in this action 66 is, therefore, DENIED. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’
2:14-cv-09033-CAS(AJWx)
Date January 25, 2017
ADVANCED CLEANUP TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. BP AMERICA, INC.

Present: The Honorable 
Catherine Jeang 
Deputy Clerk 

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER 

N/A 

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Defendants: 

Not Present 
Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: 

Not Present 
Not Present 
Proceedings:  
(IN CHAMBERS) - CLAIMAINT CUDA ENTERPRISES, INC.
MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION THAT CARMEN M.
BATRIZ d/b/a CMB PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HAS NO
LIEN AGAINST THE RECOVERY IN THIS ACTION (Dkt.
66, filed July 13, 2016)
On October 16, 2014, plaintiff Advanced Cleanup Technologies, Inc. (“ACT”)
initiated this action against defendant BP America, Inc. (“BP America”) in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court. Dkt. 1. On November 21, 2014, BP America removed
this action to this Court on the basis of both federal question and diversity jurisdiction.
Id. Subsequently, two claimants, Cuda Enterprises, Inc. (“Cuda”) and Carmen M. Batriz
(“Batriz”) filed notices of liens in this action against any recovery ACT might obtain
from BP America. Specifically, on April 8, 2015, Cuda filed a “Notice of Lien in a
Pending Action,” dkt. 19, and on July 20, 2015, Batriz filed a “Notice of Lien in a
Pending Action,” dkt. 32. On June 7, 2016, BP America and ACT filed a notice of
settlement indicating that they had reached a settlement in this action. Dkt. 62. On July
13, 2016, claimant Cuda filed the instant motion seeking a determination that claimant
Batriz has no lien against the recovery in this action. Dkt. 66. On July 22, 2016, Batriz
filed an opposition, dkt. 69, and on August 1, 2016, Cuda filed a reply, dkt. 71.
On August 15, 2016, this Court issued an order to show cause (the “OSC”)
regarding the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction over Cuda and Batriz’s liens against
ACT’s settlement recovery. Dkt. 76. On August 29, 2016, Cuda filed its response to
the OSC (“Response”). Dkt. 77. In its response, Cuda contends that the sole basis for
this Court’s jurisdiction is the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C
§ 1367. Id. at 3–5. Cuda requests that this Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction to
adjudicate Cuda’s lien because Cuda is claiming a right to the monetary recovery that BP
will issue to ACT as a result of the settlement agreement in the underlying action. Id. at
4.

CV-9033 (01/17)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
‘O’
2:14-cv-09033-CAS(AJWx)
Date January 25, 2017
ADVANCED CLEANUP TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. BP AMERICA, INC.

28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) provides that this Court has “supplemental jurisdiction over all
other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction
that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States
Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). “A state law claim is part of the same case or
controversy when it shares a ‘common nucleus of operative fact’ with the federal claims
and the state and federal claims would normally be tried together.” Bahrampour v.
Lampert, 356 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Trs. of the Constr. Indus. &
Laborers Health & Welfare Trust v. Desert Valley Landscape Maint., Inc., 333 F.3d 923,
925 (9th Cir. 2003))). Federal courts may only exercise supplemental jurisdiction to
adjudicate fee disputes between litigants and third parties if the dispute forms part of the
same case or controversy as the underlying action. See Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v.
Ferrante, 364 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004).
Here, Cuda’s state court judgment against ACT arises from dishonored payroll
checks issued by ACT. Response at 2. Batriz’s state court judgment against ACT
originates from an award for unpaid wages due from ACT. Dkt. 32. The underlying
action that ACT filed against BP concerned unpaid invoices for ACT’s services rendered
in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Dkt. 51 at 2–14. Neither Cuda nor
Batriz contend that their state court judgments against ACT are related to any of ACT’s
claims in the underlying action. Cuda and Batriz’s only argument for the exercise of
supplemental jurisdiction is that their liens are related to the underlying action because
they are claiming a right to funds that ACT receives by virtue of its settlement with BP.
Response at 4.
Cuda and Batriz’s liens arise from state court actions that are factually unrelated to
the underlying action between ACT and BP. Therefore, they are not part of the same
case or controversy as the underlying action, and this Court does not have supplemental
jurisdiction over Cuda and Batriz’s state law claims. Cuda’s motion is, therefore,
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00 
Initials of Preparer

CV-9033 (01/17)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

: 

00 

CMJ 

Page 2 of 2