7-Eleven, Inc. v. Kaur et al

Filing 6

ORDER granting 2 Motion for Order to Show Cause. Show Cause Response due within 15 days of receipt of this order why a temporary writ of possession and temporary writ of restitution shall not issue. Plaintiff shall serve this Order, along with the Complaint and Motion, on all Defendants. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 9/27/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

7-ELEVEN, INC.,

Case No. 2:12-cv-01687-MMD-VCF
Plaintiff,

10

ORDER
11

v.

(Plf.’s Motion for Order to Show Cause –
dkt. no. 2)

12
GURINDER KAUR, et. al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15

Before the Court is Plaintiff 7-Eleven, Inc.’s Motion for Order to Show Cause Why

16

a Temporary Writ of Restitution and a Temporary Writ of Possession Should Not Issue

17

or Alternatively, for Preliminary Injunctive Relief. (Dkt. no. 2.) For the reasons set forth

18

below, the Motion is granted.

19

Plaintiff filed this diversity action on September 25, 2012, seeking compensatory

20

and injunctive relief for various alleged violations of Plaintiff’s franchise agreements with

21

Defendants Gurinder Kaur, Ravinder Grewal, Sukhmani Corporation, and G&K

22

Enterprises, LLC.

23

agreement with Plaintiff to become a franchisee and operate one of Plaintiff’s

24

convenience stores. This agreement provided that the franchisee shall not assign or

25

transfer her interest to a third party without Plaintiff’s approval, and that such a transfer

26

constitutes a material breach of the agreement.

27

transferred 50% of her interest to Grewal through the formation of a jointly-owned

28

business organization, G&K Enterprises, LLC. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that Kaur

According to the Complaint, Kaur entered into a franchising

Plaintiff alleges that Kaur secretly

1

entered into a second franchise agreement with Plaintiff without disclosing Kaur’s earlier

2

transfer to Grewal. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Kaur and Sukhmani Corporation failed to

3

disclose the earlier prohibited transfer when they entered into a later assignment

4

agreement between Kaur, Sukhmani Corporation, and Plaintiff to transfer Kaur’s

5

franchisee interest to Sukhmani. Based on these violations, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit

6

alleging unlawful detainer of Plaintiff’s property and breach of contract, seeking to

7

recover compensatory damages as well as a court-ordered writ to re-possess its real

8

property and re-take various secured properties on the premises.

9

Concurrent with the filing of its Complaint, Plaintiff filed this instant Motion seeking

10

a court order to show cause as to why a temporary writ of restitution and a temporary

11

writ of possession should not issue.

12

40.300(3), which allows for the issuance of a temporary writ of restitution after a

13

response to an order to show cause is filed, and pursuant to NRS § 31.853, which allows

14

for the taking of property unlawfully held by a defendant.

Plaintiff seeks the order pursuant to NRS §

The record before the Court supports Plaintiff’s request for an order to show

15
16

cause.

The franchise agreement entered into by Plaintiff and Kaur on April 2002

17

expressly prohibited transfers of the franchisee’s interest without consent. (See dkt. no.

18

1-2 at ¶ 27 (“Exhibit 2,” Store Franchise Agreement).) The allegedly secret transfer

19

agreement was entered into on June 12, 2002, between Kaur and Grewal. (See dkt. no.

20

1-5 (“Exhibit 3,” Operating Agreement).)

21

entered into after the execution of the Operating Agreement also expressly prohibited

22

transfers of the franchisee’s interest without consent.

23

(“Exhibit 3,” Second Store Franchise Agreement).) Further, the Second Store Franchise

24

Agreement requires that no misrepresentation was made in connection with obtaining

25

the franchise. (See dkt. no. 1-6 at ¶ 6(c).) These documents, in addition to others

26

provided by Plaintiff, raise questions as to whether Defendants are unlawfully in

27

possession of Plaintiff’s property.

28

///

The Second Store Franchise Agreement

2

(See dkt. no. 1-6 at ¶ 25(b)

1

Accordingly, Defendants will have fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of this

2

Order to show cause as to why a temporary writ of possession and temporary writ of

3

restitution shall not issue. Plaintiff shall serve this Order, along with the Complaint and

4

Motion, on all Defendants.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

ENTERED THIS 27th day of September 2012.

7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3