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.

Title Jose Aquino, et al. v. Victor Page

September 29, 2011

TITLE JOSE AQUINO, ET AL.
v.
VICTOR PAGE, ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Dolly M. Gee, United States District Judge

CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

VALENCIA VALLERY NOT REPORTED

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS-ORDER REMANDING CASE TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

On September 19, 2011, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause ("OSC") why this action should not be remanded to Riverside County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction [Doc. # 11]. On the same day, Defendants Victor Page, LaVerta Page, Vincent Page, and Kevin Page (the "Pages") filed their response [Doc. # 12].

"The burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal." Marin Gen. Hosp. v. Modesto & Empire Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941, 944 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Toumajian v. Frailey, 135 F.3d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1998)). There is a "strong presumption against removal jurisdiction," and courts must reject it "if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Pages removed this action on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441. All of Plaintiffs' causes of action, however, arise under state law. The Pages nonetheless assert that the complaint raises a substantial federal question because it concerns an agreement to sell a Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") television broadcast license. (Notice of Removal [Doc. #1] ¶¶ 6-9.)

According to the complaint, Defendant Kevin Page represented to Plaintiff Jose Aquino that Defendant KZSW Television, Inc. possessed a valuable FCC license. (Compl. ¶ 23.) Approximately two years later, the Pages and KZSW allegedly entered into a stock purchase agreement with Aquino and Plaintiff NewsNet, LLC for the sale of the FCC license, facilitated by a $615,000 promissory note. (Id. ¶¶ 24-25.) Plaintiffs claim that they paid more than $450,000 but that the Page Defendants failed to transfer control of the FCC license in violation of the stock purchase agreement. (Id. ¶¶ 31, 33.) Plaintiffs raise claims for breach of oral and written contract, intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, money had and received,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 11-01295 ...


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.