Filed: Nov. 13, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 13, 2015
Summary: AMENDED JUDGMENT [Fed. R. Civ. P. 54] MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD , District Judge . Plaintiffs Rajinder Kumar Malhotra and Veena Malhotra initiated this action on June 10, 2013, against Defendant Copa De Oro Realty, LLC, alleging, inter alia, conversion of real estate intended to be held in trust for the benefit of Plaintiff Veena Malhotra. (Docket No. 1). In the operative First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs brought claims against Defendants Copa de Oro Realty, LLC, and Rakesh ("Rocky") Malhot
Summary: AMENDED JUDGMENT [Fed. R. Civ. P. 54] MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD , District Judge . Plaintiffs Rajinder Kumar Malhotra and Veena Malhotra initiated this action on June 10, 2013, against Defendant Copa De Oro Realty, LLC, alleging, inter alia, conversion of real estate intended to be held in trust for the benefit of Plaintiff Veena Malhotra. (Docket No. 1). In the operative First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs brought claims against Defendants Copa de Oro Realty, LLC, and Rakesh ("Rocky") Malhotr..
More
AMENDED JUDGMENT [Fed. R. Civ. P. 54]
MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Rajinder Kumar Malhotra and Veena Malhotra initiated this action on June 10, 2013, against Defendant Copa De Oro Realty, LLC, alleging, inter alia, conversion of real estate intended to be held in trust for the benefit of Plaintiff Veena Malhotra. (Docket No. 1). In the operative First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs brought claims against Defendants Copa de Oro Realty, LLC, and Rakesh ("Rocky") Malhotra under California law as follows: First Claim for Relief (declaratory relief), Second Claim for Relief (reformation of instrument), Third Claim for Relief (conversion), Fourth Claim for Relief (violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.), Fifth Claim for Relief (breach of contract), and Sixth Claim for Relief (fraud). Plaintiffs further brought Seventh and Eighth Claims for Relief under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1962.
In an Order dated April 22, 2014, the Court dismissed the Eighth Claim for Relief without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. (Docket No. 56). In an Order dated September 23, 2015, the Court dismissed the Seventh Claim for Relief on summary judgment. (Docket No. 199). In an Order dated October 6, 2015, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over the First through Sixth Claims for Relief. (Docket No. 206). In an Order dated November 10, 2015, the Court determined that no basis exists for subject matter jurisdiction for the First through Sixth Claims for Relief, and that judgment should not be stayed. (Docket No. 216).
Now, therefore, pursuant to Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows:
The First through Sixth Claims for Relief are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and judgment is entered in favor of Defendants accordingly.
As to the Seventh and Eighth Claims for Relief, judgment is entered in favor of Defendants, and Plaintiffs shall take nothing by their First Amended Complaint.
Costs of suit are awarded to Defendants according to proof, pursuant to Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 54-2.
SO ORDERED.
