Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02039/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02039-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

MULTIVISTA FRANCHISE SYSTEMS, )

LLC, a Delaware limited liability )

company, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 2:10-cv-02039 JWS

)

vs. ) ORDER AND OPINION

)

ANDREW WEISSMAN, et al., ) [Re: Motion at Docket 9]

)

Defendants. )

)

I. MOTION PRESENTED

At docket 9, plaintiff Multivista Franchise Systems, LLC (“Multivista”) moves to

remand this action to Arizona Superior Court in Maricopa County. At docket 19,

defendants Andrew Weissman, Scott Yahraus, and ConstructionPhotoDocs.com, LLC

(collectively “defendants”) oppose the motion. Multivista replies at docket 20. Oral

argument was not requested, and it would not assist the court.

Case 2:10-cv-02039-JWS Document 22 Filed 11/01/10 Page 1 of 6
1

Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir. 1988).

2

Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc., 478 F.3d 1018, 1021 (9th Cir. 2007).

3

Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976, 979 (9th Cir. 2005).

4

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) provides in relevant part, “The district courts shall have original

jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of

$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States.”

-2-

II. BACKGROUND

On August 24, 2010, Multivista filed a complaint against defendants Weissman,

Yahraus, and CPD in Superior Court for the State of Arizona in and for the County of

Maricopa. The complaint alleges claims of breach of contract, unfair competition under

the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), unfair competition/business practices under

California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., unfair competition

under Arizona common law, and a request for a preliminary injunction. On

September 22, 2010, defendants timely removed this action to federal court on the

basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Multivista now moves to remand

this action to Arizona Superior Court in Maricopa County. 

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Removal of a case from state to federal court is a question of federal subject

matter jurisdiction.1 The burden of establishing removal jurisdiction is on the proponent

of federal jurisdiction.2 “A lawsuit may be removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1441 if the suit could have been brought in federal court originally.”3

 Where the

court’s jurisdiction is based on diversity, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires that the amount in

controversy exceed $75,000 and that the case be between citizens of different states.4

Case 2:10-cv-02039-JWS Document 22 Filed 11/01/10 Page 2 of 6
5

Kroske, 432 F.3d at 979.

6

Doc. 2 at pp. 26-27.

7

Muchesko v. Muchesko, 955 P.2d 21, 24 (Ariz.App. 1997).

-3-

“If there is any doubt regarding the right of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, removal

jurisdiction is to be rejected.”5

IV. DISCUSSION

Multivista first contends that removal is improper because the parties executed a

Confidentiality Agreement, which contains a forum selection clause requiring disputes

arising out of breaches of the Confidentiality Agreement to be litigated in Arizona

Superior Court. The Confidentiality Agreement provides in pertinent part:

10. Governing Law. This instrument shall be governed by and construed

under the laws of the state of Arizona.

11. Jurisdiction and Venue. In the event of a breach or threatened breach

by Recipient of this Agreement, Recipient hereby irrevocably submits to the

jurisdiction of the courts of the state of Arizona, and irrevocably agrees that

venue for any action or proceeding shall be in the courts of the state of Arizona. 

Both parties waive any objection to the jurisdiction of these courts or to venue in

Arizona.6

Defendants contend that Multivista’s argument fails because there is no fully

executed agreement evidencing a mutual intent to litigate in Arizona Superior Court. 

Having reviewed the Confidentiality Agreement attached to the complaint, the court

concurs. To establish a binding Confidentiality Agreement, Multivista must establish the

essential elements of a valid contract: “an offer, acceptance, consideration, a sufficiently

specific statement of the parties’ obligations, and mutual assent.”7

 The Confidentiality

Agreement attached to the complaint indicates that Multivista tendered the

Case 2:10-cv-02039-JWS Document 22 Filed 11/01/10 Page 3 of 6
8

Kroske, 432 F.3d at 980 (quoting Singer v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d

373, 376 (9th Cir. 1997)).

9

Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996).

10Doc. 19 at p. 15.

-4-

Confidentiality Agreement to Andrew Weissman, who made handwritten changes to the

Agreement and then signed it. Multivista did not sign the Confidentiality Agreement, nor

indicate acceptance of the handwritten changes Weissman made to the Agreement. 

Accordingly, Multivista has not established mutual assent. In addition, of the

defendants named in this action, only Mr. Weissman signed the Confidentiality

Agreement. 

Multivista next contends that removal is improper because defendants have not

established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy

exceeds $75,000. Defendants removed this action to federal court based on diversity

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which requires that the amount in controversy exceed

$75,000 and that the case be between citizens of different states. Where, as here, a

complaint does not demand a specific dollar amount, “the removing defendant bears the

burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy

exceeds $[75],000.”8

 “Under this burden, the defendant must prove that it is ‘more likely

than not’ that the amount in controversy exceeds that amount.”9

Defendants concede that they “cannot determine just what the potential amount

in controversy is vis-a-vis Plaintiff’s damages claims,” but contend that the amount in

controversy for an injunction is the value to either party.10 “Under the ‘either viewpoint’

rule, the test for determining the amount in controversy is the pecuniary result to either

Case 2:10-cv-02039-JWS Document 22 Filed 11/01/10 Page 4 of 6
11In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (South Dakota), NA, 264 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2001)

(citing Ridder Bros. Inc., v. Blethen, 142 F.2d 395, 399 (9th Cir. 1944) (“The value of the ‘thing

sought to be accomplished by the action’ may relate to either or any party to the action.”)

12Doc. 19 at p. 14.

13Doc. 19-1 at p. 8.

14JustMed, Inc. v. Byce, 600 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 2010).

-5-

party which the judgment would directly produce.”11 Defendants contend that an

injunction preventing ConstructionPhotoDocs.com (“CPD”) from operating would more

likely than not result in excess of $75,000 of harm to defendants.12 In support,

defendants attach Mr. Weissman’s declaration which summarily states that if CPD is

prevented from operating by plaintiff’s injunction “the damages and cost to myself and

CPD would exceed $75,000 based on time, capital and energy already invested as well

as future lost profits.”13 Multivista has not asked the court to prevent CPD from

operating. It only asks that CPD be prevented from using information provided by

Multivista and to stop using its current mark or a confusingly similar one. Based on the

above, defendants have not established by a preponderance of evidence that the

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Defendants next argue that the court has federal question jurisdiction because

the complaint alleges claims under the Lanham Act. Without citing any controlling

authority, Multivista contends that defendants cannot assert federal question jurisdiction

because they did not allege federal question jurisdiction in the Notice of Removal. 

Multivista’s argument fails because even if neither party raises jurisdiction concerns, the

court must satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction over a case.14 Under the “well-pleaded

complaint” rule, federal jurisdiction exists “when a federal question is presented on the

Case 2:10-cv-02039-JWS Document 22 Filed 11/01/10 Page 5 of 6
15Id. (internal citation and quotation omitted).

16Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 471 F.3d 975, 976 n.1 (9th Cir. 2006)

17Sullivan, 813 F.2d at 1371-1372.

18Williams, 471 F.3d at 976.

-6-

face of a properly pleaded complaint.”15 Here, Multivista’s complaint states a claim

under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) of the Lanham Act, and requests damages under §§ 1051

and 1117(a). Despite the fact that defendants removed on the basis of diversity, the

complaint also supports federal jurisdiction on federal question grounds. “The civil

removal statute, unlike the removal statute for criminal cases, has no requirement that

all grounds for removal be listed in the notice.”16 

“The plaintiff is ‘master to decide what law he will rely upon, and, if he can

maintain his claim on both state and federal grounds, he may ignore the federal

question and assert only a state law claim and defeat removal.”17 Here, because

Multivista’s complaint includes a federal claim, Multivista’s motion for remand must be

denied. “[W]here the district court is presented with a case within its original jurisdiction,

it has ‘a virtually unflagging obligation to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon [it] by

the coordinate branches of government and duly invoked by litigants.’”18

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, plaintiff’s motion at docket 9 for remand and

request for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 is DENIED.

DATED this1st day of November 2010.

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-02039-JWS Document 22 Filed 11/01/10 Page 6 of 6