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.

Chris Silva v. Fletcher Asset Management

October 17, 2012

CHRIS SILVA
v.
FLETCHER ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC. ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable Gary Allen Feess

LINKS: 6, 7

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Renee Fisher None N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None None

Proceedings: (In Chambers)

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO REMAND AND DISMISS

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Chris Silva brings this action against Defendants Fletcher Asset Management,*fn1 ("FAM"), BRG Investments, LLC ("BRG"), and Alphonse "Buddy" Fletcher, Jr. ("Fletcher"), alleging that Defendants tortiously breached a financing arrangement he had arranged between them and Seven Arts Pictures, PLC ("Seven Arts"). (Docket No 1., Not., Ex. C [First Am. Compl. ("FAC")].) The matter is presently before the Court on Silva's motion to remand the action to Los Angeles County Superior Court, and Defendants' motion to dismiss Silva's first amended complaint. (Docket Nos. 6, 7.) These motions were previously before the Court, but the Court deferred ruling on either motion until subject matter jurisdiction could be established. (Docket No. 12, 05/17/12 Order.) The 05/17/12 Order granted Silva limited jurisdictional discovery because the Court did not have sufficient information to determine the citizenship of Defendants FAM and Fletcher. (05/17/12 Order at 7.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Defendants' inadequate responses to Plaintiff's special interrogatories served in accordance with this Court's 05/17/12 Order were not made in good faith and are therefore deemed by the Court as an admission that full, complete and responsive answers to those interrogatories would have established that Fletcher is a California citizen. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to remand and DISMISSES Defendants' motion to dismiss as MOOT.

II. BACKGROUND

The Court's 05/17/12 Order gave a full and detailed recitation of the facts and background of this case. The Court will presume the parties' familiarity with that Order.

It is apparent from the 05/17/12 Order that the issue of citizenship, both for Defendants FAM and Fletcher, was close. Regarding FAM, Defendants argued that it is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in New York. (Not. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff contended, however, that under the Supreme Court's "nerve center" test, FAM's principal place of business shifted to California. (Docket No. 7, [Mot. to Remand ("P-Mem.")] at 7.) Regarding Fletcher, Defendants allege that he is a citizen of Connecticut. (Not. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff argues that Fletcher is in fact legally a citizen of California. (P-Mem. at 4-7.)

Both parties pointed to numerous factors in support of their respective positions. The Court found that it could not rule on the record before it and accordingly permitted Plaintiff to engage in limited jurisdictional discovery. (05/17/12 Order at 6.) In reaction to the Court's Order, Plaintiff propounded one set of fifteen interrogatories, and had limited follow-up with Defendants. (Docket 15, ...


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.