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.

K&F Restaurant Holdings, LTD. v. Rouse

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

January 24, 2019

K&F RESTAURANT HOLDINGS, LTD. d/b/a IZZO'S ILLEGAL BURRITO, ET AL.
v.
DONALD J. ROUSE, JR., ET AL.

          NOTICE

          RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR., UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Please take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report has been filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court.

         In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have fourteen (14) days after being served with the attached Report to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations therein. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations within 14 days after being served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which have been accepted by the District Court.

         ABSOLUTELY NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.

         MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

         Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (R. Doc. 5) filed on July 6, 2018. The motion is opposed by the defendants (“Rouse's”). (R. Doc. 12). Oral Argument was held on January 22, 2019. (R. Doc. 24).[1]

         I.Background

         Plaintiffs (“Izzo's”) initiated this action with the filing of their “Petition for Preliminary Injunction and for Damages Under the Louisiana Antitrust Statutes, the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Civil Conspiracy” (“Petition”) in state court on May 14, 2018. (R. Doc. 1-2 at 1-31). Izzo's alleges that, after it declined a proposal from Rouse's to franchise within the grocery store, Rouse's engaged in a pattern of conduct that essentially excluded Izzo's from the market in violation of fair trade practices. (R. Doc. 1-2 at 4). Izzo's alleges that Rouse's has included clauses in its leases with developers that would preclude Izzo's from establishing locations in the same developments, as well as that Rouse's has used a stolen recipe book from Izzo's and set up a burrito bar in its stores that is “similar, if not identical, to Izzo's.” (R. Doc. 1-2 at 5).

         II. Arguments of the Parties

         Rouse's alleges, in the Notice of Removal, that federal jurisdiction is proper on the basis of federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (R. Doc. 1 at 2). In support of this position, Rouse's suggests that Plaintiffs have disguised their allegations as arising under state law when the claims are actually pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962, et seq. (R. Doc. 1 at 3). The portion of the Plaintiffs' petition that Defendants posit establishes a federal question is a quote from 18 U.S.C. § 1832, which is incorrectly cited as La. R.S. 51:121. (R. Doc. 1 at 3).

         Plaintiffs argue, in their Motion to Remand, that they have brought only state law claims and that Defendants' “own assumptions” regarding the existence of federal claims is without merit. (R. Doc. 5-1 at 4-5). Defendants respond that Plaintiffs “deliberately conceal the federal question in their petition.” (R. Doc. 12 at 1). Defendants stress the Plaintiffs' citation of an excerpt of 18 U.S.C. § 1832 as La. R.S. 51:121, and Plaintiffs' use of the phrase “racketeering activity” as indicative of claims brought under federal law. (R. Doc. 12 at 4-5).

         Defendants alternatively suggest, in their Notice of Removal, a reservation of their “rights to conduct discovery regarding Plaintiffs' citizenship in order to assert diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) if they discovery grounds sufficient to do so.” (R. Doc. 1 at 3). Plaintiffs respond that Osvaldo Fernandez and the Plaintiff companies are all citizens of Louisiana. (R. Doc. 5-1 at 5).

         III. Law and Analysis

         A.Legal Standards Defendants may remove “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A federal question exists “if there appears on the face of the complaint some substantial, disputed question of federal law.” In re ...


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.