Gala et al v. Britt et al

Filing 80

ORDER Granting 79 Stipulation to Dismiss Action and Vacate all Orders. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 4/27/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5

Paul J. Georgeson, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 5322
McDONALD CARANO WILSON LLP
100 West Liberty Street, 10th Floor
P.O. Box 2670
Reno, Nevada 89505
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]

8

J. William Blue, Jr., Esq.
NORTHEN BLUE, LLP
Post Office Box 2208
Chapel Hill, NC 27515-2208
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]

9

Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimant

6
7

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

13

*****

14
15

KANTI GALA, an individual; HEMI GALA, an Case No. 2:10-cv-00079-RLH-RJJ
individual; GALA WORLDWIDE, INC., a
Virginia corporation,

16
Plaintiffs,
17
vs.

18
19
20
21
22
23

WILLIAM B. BRITT, an individual; PEGGY
BRITT, an individual; KANTI GALA (II), an
individual; BRITT WORLDWIDE, LLC, a
Nevada limited liability company; TRINITY
EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS, LLC, a Nevada
limited liability company,
Defendants.
______________________________________/

24
25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
DISMISS ACTION AND VACATE
ALL ORDERS

1

BRITT WORLDWIDE, LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company,

2
Counterclaimant,

3
4
5
6
7

vs.
KANTI GALA, an individual; HEMI GALA, an
individual; GALA INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
Virginia corporation,
Counterdefendants.
______________________________________/

8
9

WHEREAS, when Plaintiffs originally filed their Complaint in this matter, and

10

subsequently requested other relief, Plaintiffs relied on allegations of diversity jurisdiction

11

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 to confer jurisdiction of the claims with this Court.

12

WHEREAS, when Defendants applied for enforcement of the underlying arbitration

13

award pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, Defendants relied upon diversity jurisdiction

14

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 to confer jurisdiction of this Court over the Application for

15

Enforcement of Arbitration Award.
WHEREAS, thereafter, this Court entered various Orders relating to the Complaint and

16
17

enforcement of the underlying Arbitration Award.
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs appealed this Court’s Orders to the Ninth Circuit Court of

18
19

Appeals.

20

WHEREAS, on March 8, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an Order

21

directing the parties to address the issue of whether this Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of

22

Appeals had jurisdiction over the claims in this matter based on the cases of Johnson v.

23

Columbia Prop. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) and Mantin v. Broadcast

24

Music, Inc., 244 F.2d 204, 206-07 (9th Cir. 1957).

25

WHEREAS, pursuant to Johnson, when addressing diversity jurisdiction when one of the

26

parties is a limited liability company, the Court looks to the citizenship of each member of the

27

LLC to determine if there is diversity of citizenship to confer federal court jurisdiction.

28

//
1

1

WHEREAS, Defendant Britt Worldwide, LLC had at least one member of Britt

2

Worldwide, LLC who was a citizen of Virginia (as that term is defined for evaluation of

3

diversity jurisdiction purposes) both at the time that Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this matter

4

on January 20, 2010 as well as at the time Defendants filed their Application for Enforcement of

5

Arbitration Award on June 21, 2010.

6

WHEREAS, it is Plaintiff’s position that Plaintiffs Kanti Gala and Hemi Gala are

7

citizens of the State of Virginia for purposes of evaluation of diversity jurisdiction. Moreover, it

8

is undisputed that Plaintiff Gala Worldwide, Inc. is a Virginia corporation with its principal

9

place of business in Virginia, and is a citizen of the State of Virginia for purposes of diversity

10

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

11

WHEREAS, all parties to this action ultimately determined that there is no valid

12

diversity jurisdiction in this matter because at least one Plaintiff is a citizen of Virginia for

13

purposes of evaluating diversity jurisdiction and, pursuant to Johnson, Britt Worldwide, LLC is

14

also a citizen of Virginia for purposes of evaluating diversity jurisdiction because at least one

15

member of Britt Worldwide, LLC is a citizen of Virginia.

16

WHEREAS, the parties agree that there is no independent basis for federal subject matter

17

jurisdiction over the claims in the Complaint or the Application for enforcement of an arbitration

18

award.

19
20

WHEREAS, oral argument was held at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in this matter
on March 16, 2012.

21

WHEREAS, at the time of the oral argument, the parties made the representations to the

22

Court consistent with the facts identified above, relating to the apparent lack of diversity or

23

subject matter jurisdiction.

24

WHEREAS, on April 4, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entered its Order

25

vacating the District Court’s Judgment and remanding the case to the District Court to consider

26

whether subject matter jurisdiction exists in this matter.

27

WHEREAS, as the parties represented to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals during oral

28

argument, the parties acknowledge and agree that there is no basis for this Court having subject
2

1

matter jurisdiction over the claims of this action or over the application for enforcement of the

2

arbitration award.

3

Therefore, the parties hereby acknowledge, stipulate, and agree as follows:

4

1.

5
6

There is not now, nor has there ever been, diversity jurisdiction in this matter

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332; and
2.

There is no independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction over the claims

7

asserted and other relief requested in this matter (including the Application for Enforcement of

8

Arbitration Award filed by Defendants).

9

3.

That because this Court has never had jurisdiction over this matter, all of the

10

Orders issued by this Court are null, void, and must be vacated.

11

Dated this 25th day of April, 2012.

Dated this 25th day of April, 2012.

12

McDONALD CARANO WILSON LLP

CONNAGHAN/NEWBERRY LAW FIRM

By /s/ Paul J. Georgeson
Paul J. Georgeson
100 W. Liberty Street, 10th Floor
Reno, NV 89501

By /s/ Paul R. Connaghan
Paul R. Connaghan
7854 West Sahara Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89117
Nevada Bar No. 3229

Attorneys for Defendants and
Counterclaimant

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterdefendants

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

ORDER OF THE COURT

1
2

THE DISTRICT COURT FINDS that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, due to lack of

3

diversity between the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, for the original Complaint, the

4

Defendants’ Application for Enforcement of the Arbitration Award under the Federal

5

Arbitration Act, or for any other relief requested by the parties; and

6

There is no independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted or

7

other relief requested in this matter (including the Application for Enforcement of Arbitration

8

Award filed by Defendants).

9

THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDES THAT because this Court has never had

10

jurisdiction over this matter, all of the Orders issued by this Court are null, void, and must be

11

vacated.

12
13
14
15
16

THEREFORE, IT IS SO ORDERED that this matter is hereby dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, as to all parties and all claims, without prejudice.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that all prior Orders issued by this Court are
hereby vacated.
April
27th
DATED: This _____ day of ______________, 2012.

17
18

__________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24

334024.3/PJG:cj

25
26
27
28
4