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.

Competent Software Pvt. Ltd. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC

United States District Court, C.D. California

January 13, 2020

COMPETENT SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.
v.
CORELOGIC SOLUTIONS, LLC

          PRESENT: THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE

          CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

         PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND [10]

         Before the Court is Plaintiff Competent Software Pvt. Ltd.'s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Remand (“Motion”) (Dkt. 10). The Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. Having reviewed the moving papers submitted by the parties, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.

         I. Background

         A. Facts

         The following facts are drawn from Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. 1-1) and Defendant's Notice of Removal (“Notice”) (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff is a company based in New Delhi, India, and provides data entry, software, and related services for customers in the real estate industry. Compl. ¶ 1. In October 2008, Plaintiff and First American Real Estate Information Services, Inc. (“First”) entered into a written Master Services Agreement (“MSA”), which in part provided that Plaintiff would perform data entry and software services for First. Id. ¶ 5. In or about the year 2010, Defendant CoreLogic Solutions, LLC (“Defendant”) succeeded to First's interests under the MSA. Id. Plaintiff claims that Defendant breached the MSA by failing to pay for services under the MSA, and now owes approximately $878, 952.70.

         The MSA contains an arbitration provision that provides that disputes arising from or in connection with the MSA “shall be submitted to and determined by arbitration.” Notice ¶ 7. This arbitration clause is within the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “Convention”). Id. ¶¶ 4-10.

         B. Procedural History

         Plaintiff originally filed suit in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, on September 17, 2019 (Dkt. 1-1). Plaintiff brings the following causes of action:

(1) breach of contract;
(2) work, labor, and services rendered; and
(3) reasonable value of work, labor, and services.

See generally Compl. Defendant removed the action to this Court on November 8, 2019. See generally Notice. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand and a supporting Memorandum (Dkt. 10-1) on December 3, 2019. On December 16, 2019, Defendant filed a brief in Opposition (Dkt. 14), and Plaintiff submitted its Reply (Dkt. 15) on December 23, 2019.

         II. ...


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.