Cardinalli v. Superior Court of California for the County of Monterey et al
Filing
33
Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting 22 Motion to Dismiss.(lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
SAL J. CARDINALLI,
12
Plaintiff,
v.
13
14
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR
THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY, a California
State court, et al.
Defendants.
16
Case No.: 5:12-CV-06356-LHK
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
17
18
Sal Cardinalli (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against his two brothers, John Cardinalli, Jr.
19
and Stephen Cardinalli; his father, John Cardinalli, Sr. 1; his nephews Vincent Cardinalli and John
20
T. Cardinalli III; the John T. Cardinalli, Jr. and Angela Cardinalli Living Trust and the Stephen P.
21
Cardinalli and Francesca Cardinalli Living Trust; the Salinas Yellow Cab Co., LLC; and Yellow
22
Cab, Monterey Airporter, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) for declaratory relief, intentional
23
interference with economic expectancy, conspiracy to defraud, and fraudulent conveyance. ECF
24
1
25
26
27
28
John Cardinalli Sr. is in his nineties and suffering dementia. As a result, John Cardinalli Sr. is not
aware of this suit.
1
Case No.: 5:12-CV-06356-LHK
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND
1
No. 1 (“Compl.”) at ¶¶ 7–8, 10, 40–58. 2 In addition, Plaintiff brings claims against John
2
Cardinalli, Jr.; Stephen Cardinalli; and John Cardinalli, Sr. for partition of real property and unpaid
3
reasonable rental value of property. Compl. at ¶¶ 59–72. Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion
4
to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). See ECF Nos. 22 (“Mot.”), 26 (“Opp’n”), 29
5
(“Reply”). For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
6
Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend.
7
I.
8
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of a dispute about a family business. In 1976, Plaintiff Sal Cardinalli
and Defendants John Cardinalli, Jr.; Stephen Cardinalli; and John Cardinalli, Sr. purchased
10
Monterey Checker Transportation, Inc. (“MCT”), a Monterey-based taxicab company. Compl. at ¶
11
17; Mot. at 3. Each party owned a twenty-five percent share of MCT. Compl. at ¶ 17; Mot. at 3.
12
Plaintiff alleges that, beginning in September 2002, Defendants froze Plaintiff out of “any
13
meaningful participation in the management, operation, control, or rental” of MCT and its related
14
real estate. Compl. at ¶ 61. Plaintiff claims, for example, that Defendants have allowed taxicabs to
15
dump toxic waste on the real estate owned by MCT and have refused to pay Plaintiff rental
16
payments owed to Plaintiff as part of his share in MCT despite Plaintiff’s “demand[s] that he be
17
afforded the rights and privileges of an owner.” Compl. at ¶¶ 61–62, 64, 68.
In October 2004, Plaintiff brought a state court action against MCT, Defendants John
18
19
Cardinalli and Stephen Cardinalli, their wives, and New Hope, Inc. for declaratory relief,
20
accounting, partition, breach of fiduciary duty, and an allegation for the involuntary dissolution of
21
the corporation. Cardinalli v. Cardinalli, H032309, 2010 WL 5176852 at *1–2, 4 (Cal. Ct. App.
22
Dec. 21, 2010) (unpublished). On March 26, 2007, the state court found for Plaintiff as to his
23
involuntary dissolution claim but denied his remaining claims. Id. at *1. In particular, the court
24
2
25
26
27
28
Michael Cardinalli; Yellow Cab of Monterey County, LLC; the Superior Court of California for
the County of Monterey; and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
California are no longer defendants in this case. See ECF Nos. 16, 24.
2
Case No.: 5:12-CV-06356-LHK
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND
1
ordered that Plaintiff’s twenty-five percent share in MCT be liquidated and that Plaintiff be
2
reimbursed for $283,750. Compl. at ¶¶ 18–19. The California Court of Appeal affirmed this
3
decision on December 21, 2010. Cardinalli, 2010 WL 5176852 at *15. The judgment became
4
final in March 2011. Compl. at ¶ 20; Mot. at 4.
5
Two months after the state court’s judgment became final, MCT filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy. Compl. at ¶ 23(d). MCT’s filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy triggered an automatic
7
stay as to all litigation concerning MCT’s debts, so Plaintiff could not sue MCT to collect his state
8
court judgment. Compl. at ¶ 23(l); see In re Palmdale Hills Prop., LLC, 423 B.R. 655, 663 (B.A.P.
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
6
9th Cir. 2009) aff'd, 654 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The filing of a bankruptcy petition creates a
10
bankruptcy estate, which is protected by an automatic stay of actions by all entities to collect or
11
recover on claims.”). Plaintiff therefore moved to dismiss the bankruptcy petition “on the ground
12
of fraud” and for “substantive consolidation.” Compl. at ¶ 31. The bankruptcy court denied both
13
of Plaintiff’s motions. Compl. at ¶ 31. Subsequently, Plaintiff and MCT stipulated to convert the
14
Chapter 11 reorganization to a Chapter 7 liquidation. In re Monterey Checker Transportation, Inc.,
15
No. 11-54837, ECF No. 49 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2011). The bankruptcy court granted the
16
stipulation. In re Monterey Checker Transportation, Inc., No. 11-54837, ECF No. 50 (Bankr. N.D.
17
Cal. Oct. 13, 2011). Plaintiff then entered into a stipulation with the trustee overseeing MCT’s
18
Chapter 7 liquidation to lift the automatic stay as to the Defendants so that Plaintiff could file an
19
action against Defendants in state court. In re Monterey Checker Transportation, Inc., No. 11-
20
54837, ECF No. 76 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. May 25, 2012); Compl. at ¶ 32. The bankruptcy court
21
granted this stipulation to lift the automatic stay. In re Monterey Checker Transportation, Inc., No.
22
11-54837, ECF No. 81 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. May 30, 2012). The bankruptcy court found that
23
Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants “[did] not in any way effect [sic] the bankruptcy
24
proceedings.” Id. at 3.
25
26
27
28
3
Case No.: 5:12-CV-06356-LHK
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND
1
Plaintiff filed an action in the Superior Court of Monterey County in April 2012. Compl. at
¶ 33. Plaintiff alleged eleven claims including conspiracy to defraud, intentional interference with
3
economic expectancy, and partition of real property. Mot. at 4–5. The state court dismissed all
4
eleven of Plaintiff’s claims and denied Plaintiff leave to amend for all of his claims except for
5
conspiracy to defraud. 3 Compl. at ¶ 35. Plaintiff then filed a motion for reconsideration, which the
6
court denied. Compl. at ¶¶ 36–37. Finally, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint
7
without leave to amend as to all eleven of Plaintiff’s causes of action. Compl. at ¶ 37. Plaintiff
8
appealed the trial court’s judgment to the California Court of Appeal, where the action is now
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
2
pending. Mot. at 5.
10
After receiving decisions from the bankruptcy court and state trial court, Plaintiff filed the
11
instant case in this Court on December 14, 2012, alleging state law claims to “hedge his bets”
12
against an adverse ruling by the Court of Appeal. Opp’n at 6. Defendants move to dismiss
13
Plaintiff’s complaint due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. Mot.
14
at 7–11. Plaintiff filed an opposition, ECF No. 26, and Defendants filed a reply, ECF No. 29.
15
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
16
A.
Rule 12(b)(1)
17
A defendant may move to dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant
18
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
19
jurisdiction will be granted if the complaint on its face fails to allege facts sufficient to establish
20
subject matter jurisdiction. See Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036, 1039 n.2 (9th
21
Cir. 2003). In considering a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the Court “is not restricted to the face of the
22
pleadings, but may review any evidence, such as affidavits and testimony, to resolve factual
23
3
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff requests that this Court take judicial notice of various documents in the state court
action. ECF No. 25. Defendants have not opposed this request. The Court GRANTS this request
for judicial notice. See Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 866 (9th Cir. 2002) (taking judicial notice
of documents in a state court action).
4
Case No.: 5:12-CV-06356-LHK
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND
1
disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction.” McCarthy v. United States, 850 F.2d 558, 560
2
(9th Cir. 1988). Once a party has moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under
3
Rule 12(b)(1), the opposing party bears the burden of establishing the court’s jurisdiction, see
4
Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 598 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 2010), by putting forth
5
“the manner and degree of evidence required” by whatever stage of the litigation the case has
6
reached, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992).
B.
8
If the Court determines that the complaint should be dismissed, it must then decide whether
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
7
to grant leave to amend. Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend
10
“should be freely granted when justice so requires,” bearing in mind that “the underlying purpose
11
of Rule 15 . . . [is] to facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or
12
technicalities.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (internal quotation
13
marks omitted). Nonetheless, a court “may exercise its discretion to deny leave to amend due to
14
‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on part of the movant, repeated failure to cure
15
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party. . . , [and]
16
futility of amendment.’” Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 892-93 (9th Cir.
17
2010) (alterations in original) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).
18
III.
19
Leave to Amend
DISCUSSION
Defendants contend that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s
20
complaint. Mot. at 6–11. Plaintiff’s contention is that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction
21
because Plaintiff’s state law claims are “related to” MCT’s bankruptcy proceeding and therefore
22
this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). 4 Compl. at ¶¶ 2, 41, 43–44; Opp’n at 11–15.
23
The Court finds that Plaintiff has not adequately alleged subject matter jurisdiction.
24
4
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff also suggests that the Court may have federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1331. This contention lacks merit. Plaintiff alleges six causes of action: (1) declaratory relief to
establish jurisdiction , (2) intentional interference with economic expectancy, (3) conspiracy to
5
Case No.: 5:12-CV-06356-LHK
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND
1
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334, federal district courts have original, non-exclusive
jurisdiction over claims that are “related to cases under title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). To
3
establish subject matter jurisdiction under Section 1334(b), Plaintiff needs to demonstrate that his
4
state law claims against Defendants are “related to” MCT’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy. In the Ninth
5
Circuit, a non-bankruptcy proceeding is “related” to a bankruptcy proceeding if the non-bankruptcy
6
proceeding “could conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy,”
7
such that “the outcome [of the non-bankruptcy proceeding] could alter the debtor's rights,
8
liabilities, options, or freedom of action (either positively or negatively) and which in any way
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
2
impacts upon the handling and administration of the bankrupt estate.” In re Fietz, 852 F.2d 455,
10
457 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984, 994 (3d Cir. 1984)). Moreover,
11
“related to” jurisdiction is not as broad in a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding as in a Chapter 11
12
reorganization proceeding. Bankr. Estate of Leachman v. Harris, No. 12-CV-4072, 2013 WL
13
428572 at *6 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2013) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 309
14
(1995)).
15
The Court finds that Plaintiff cannot establish that his state law claims are “related to”
16
MCT’s bankruptcy proceedings. The bankruptcy court’s order lifting the automatic stay against
17
Defendants is instructive. 5 After reviewing Plaintiff’s state law complaint, the bankruptcy court
18
defraud, (4) fraudulent conveyance, (5) partition of real property, (6) claim for unpaid reasonable
rental value of property. Compl. at ¶¶ 40–72. Five of these causes of action are California state
law claims, which do not raise a federal question. The claim for declaratory relief does not confer
jurisdiction. “The declaratory judgment statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, does not create an independent
basis for federal jurisdiction.” Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227, 229 (9th Cir. 1980). The Court finds
that no federal question underlies Plaintiff’s declaratory relief cause of action. Further, Plaintiff’s
contention that his due process rights would be violated if this Court did not exercise jurisdiction is
frivolous and insufficient to confer jurisdiction. See Hoye v. Sullivan, 985 F.2d 990, 991-92 (9th
Cir. 1993) (holding that non-colorable constitutional arguments are not sufficient to confer subject
matter jurisdiction).
5
This is particularly important in light of the fact that this Court would refer this case to the
bankruptcy court if this Court were to find “related to” subject matter jurisdiction. In this district,
“all cases under Title 11 and all civil proceedings arising under Title 11 or arising in or related to a
case under Title 11 are referred to the Bankruptcy Judges . . . except as [otherwise] provided.”
B.L.R. 5011-1.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Case No.: 5:12-CV-06356-LHK
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND
found that Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants “[do not] affect the administration of
2
[MCT’s] Bankruptcy in any manner … [and] will not in any way effect [sic] the bankruptcy
3
proceedings.” See In re Monterey, ECF No. 81 at 3. The bankruptcy court also noted that
4
“Monterey Checker Transportation, Inc’s interests and damages are separate and apart from
5
Plaintiff's interests and damages.” Id. Based on these reasons, the bankruptcy court allowed
6
Plaintiff to sue Defendants in state court. The same considerations are relevant here, especially in
7
light of the fact that the automatic stay (that the bankruptcy court lifted) and Section 1334(b) have
8
the same purpose, diminishing the risk of creditors unfairly collecting from the debtor outside of
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
bankruptcy proceedings. See Boucher v. Shaw, 572 F.3d 1087, 1093 (9th Cir. 2009) (plaintiff’s
10
claim was not “related to” bankruptcy proceeding because it was not an “alternative route to recoup
11
property of the estate”); see also H.R. Rep. 95-595, 49, 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5963, 6010 (the
12
purpose of Section 1334 is to eliminate “forum shopping . . . and the dissipation of assets and the
13
expense associated with bifurcated jurisdiction . . . .”); In re Pro-Fit Holdings Ltd., 391 B.R. 850,
14
862 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008) (one of the main purposes of automatic stay is to prevent creditors
15
from unfairly recovering from the debtor by filing first in court).
16
MCT is not a defendant in Plaintiff’s state court action, and Plaintiff does not name MCT as
17
a defendant in the instant case. Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants will be indemnified by
18
MCT if Plaintiff prevails on his state law claims or in the instant case. Plaintiff has not shown that
19
the outcome of his claims against Defendants will affect MCT’s bankruptcy estate or the
20
administration of MCT’s liquidation proceeding. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims are unrelated to
21
MCT’s bankruptcy.
22
Because Plaintiff has not pleaded that his state law claims against Defendants have any
23
effect on MCT’s bankruptcy proceeding, Plaintiff’s claims lack “related to” jurisdiction under
24
Section 1334, and thus the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this case. See Kokkonen, 511
25
26
27
28
7
Case No.: 5:12-CV-06356-LHK
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND
1
U.S. at 377 (party asserting subject matter jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing subject
2
matter jurisdiction). 6
3
III.
4
CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiff does not provide adequate grounds to establish federal subject matter
jurisdiction, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to
6
Rule 12(b)(1). Under Rule 15(a), leave to amend generally shall be denied only if allowing
7
amendment would unduly prejudice the opposing party, cause undue delay, or be futile, or if the
8
moving party has acted in bad faith. See Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522, 532
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
5
(9th Cir. 2008). Because none of these conditions is met, the Court finds it appropriate to grant
10
Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint and plead additional facts that go to subject matter
11
jurisdiction. Any amendment to the complaint must be filed by December 1, 2013. Failure to cure
12
deficiencies identified in this Order will result in the dismissal of these claims with prejudice. No
13
new causes of action or parties may be added without leave of the Court or stipulation by the
14
parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17
Dated: November 7, 2013
_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Plaintiff expresses concern that if this Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s causes
of action, that will leave Plaintiff without a forum to substantively adjudicate his claims because
the state court found that the federal court had exclusive jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. Opp’n
at 10-11. This Court does not find Plaintiff’s claim persuasive. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that
the state court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims on jurisdictional grounds. Rather, the state court
documents in the record demonstrate that Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed on the merits. See ECF
No. 25 at 28 (dismissing several of Plaintiff’s causes of action on res judicata grounds).
8
Case No.: 5:12-CV-06356-LHK
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?