Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Baby Moose Drawings, Inc. v. Dean Valentine et al.

April 1, 2011

BABY MOOSE DRAWINGS, INC.
v.
DEAN VALENTINE ET AL.



JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Present: The Honorable JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN

Alicia Mamer Not Reported N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not present Not present

Proceedings: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND [9] (In Chambers)

Before the Court is Plaintiff Baby Moose Drawings, Inc.'s ("Plaintiff") Motion to Remand. (Docket No. 9.) The Motion is made on the ground that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court has reviewed the briefs filed in connection with the Motion and deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Local Rule 7-15. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Motion and REMANDS the action to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff commenced this action against Defendant Dean Valentine ("Defendant") in Los Angeles County Superior Court. (Notice of Removal at 1.) The following facts are alleged in the Complaint:

Plaintiff is the assignee of Mark Grotjahn's ("Grotjahn") royalty collection rights. (Compl. ¶ 1.) Grotjahn, an artist, sold to Defendant two paintings and a drawing Grotjahn created. (Id. ¶¶ 6-8.) Defendant subsequently resold these three works of art for a profit. (Id. ¶¶ 6-10.) In violation of section 986 of the California Civil Code ("Royalty Act"), Defendant allegedly failed and refused to pay Plaintiff the 5% royalties due. (Id. ¶ 10.) Based on these allegations, Plaintiff seeks damages, attorney's fees and costs for Defendant's failure to pay royalties pursuant to the Royalty Act.

On January 24, 2011, Defendant removed the action to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction. (Docket No. 1.) Plaintiff moved to remand, claiming that the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction. (Mot. at 1.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A defendant may remove any civil action from state court to federal court if the federal court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441(a). Original jurisdiction may be based on diversity of citizenship, federal question, or "any civil action arising under any Act of Congress ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.