Gopal v. Luther

Gopal v. Luther

Opinion

ORDER

Plaintiff Krishan K. Gopal brings state law claims arising from a contractual dispute over a cannabis business. Defendants removed the action to this court. Plaintiff moves to remand, and defendants move to dismiss. Both motions are fully briefed. The court grants plaintiff's motion to remand, and therefore denies defendants' motion to dismiss as moot.

I. BACKGROUND

California Relief LLC (CRL) is a cannabis cultivation business. Compl. at 6, Not. Removal, ECF No 1-1.¹ Krishan Gopal, Rakesh Rana, and defendants Brikena Luther and Kapil Luther are all members of CRL. See Rana Decl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 9-3; Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) at 13, Not. Removal Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1.² In February 2020, Gopal agreed to purchase the Luthers' interests in CRL for $700,000.00. Id. at 13-14. The Luthers also agreed to transfer their cannabis cultivation license and permit. Id. at 15. [*2]  Gopal alleges the Luthers have refused to relinquish "a license to cultivate cannabis in California" and a "Nevada County permit" for marijuana cultivation. Compl. at 8. The Luthers contend Gopal breached his obligations under the agreement and argue the parties must arbitrate their dispute. See Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 4.

Gopal originally filed this action in Nevada County Superior Court. Compl. at 1. He asserts three claims against the Luthers: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud; and (3) breach of fiduciary duty. Id. at 4-11. He also seeks declaratory relief against CRL. Id. at 11. The Luthers removed the action after all of the defendants were served, invoking this court's diversity jurisdiction. See Not. Removal, ECF No. 1.

Two fully briefed motions are pending before the court. Gopal moves to remand the action to state court for lack of jurisdiction; in the alternative, he asks the court to abstain from deciding this case. Mot. Remand, ECF No. 9; Opp'n Remand, ECF No. 12; Reply Remand, ECF No. 14. The Luthers move to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay the action. Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 4; Opp'n Dismiss, ECF No. 11; Reply Dismiss, ECF No. 15. The court submitted both motions without [*3]  oral argument. Min. Order, ECF No. 13.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.