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.

Method, LLC v. Make It Right Foundation

United States District Court, D. Montana, Missoula Division

February 1, 2018

METHOD, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company dba METHOD HOMES; and METHOD CONTRACTING, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company, Plaintiffs,
v.
MAKE IT RIGHT FOUNDATION, a Delaware Corporation; MAKE IT RIGHT-MONTANA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; MR INNOVATIONS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; MAKE IT RIGHT FOUNDATION dba MIR MONTANA; MIR INNOVATIONS, LLC dba MIR MONTANA; SAMUEL WHITT dba MIR MONTANA; JOHN DOES 1-50; and ABC BUSINESSES 1-20, Defendants.

          ORDER

          Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge United States District Court

         Plaintiffs bring this action alleging that Defendants are liable for damages resulting from breach of contract. Defendants removed the case to federal court from the Montana Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County. (Doc. 1.)

         Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (Doc. 11), Defendants' Motion to Arbitrate and Stay Proceedings (Doc. 13), and Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 57).

         For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the Motion to Remand, grants the Motion to Compel Arbitration, and denies the Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 57).

         Factual and Procedural Background

         In the summer of 2013, Defendants partnered with the Sioux and Assiniboine tribes to build sustainable homes on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. To this end, they hired contractors, including the Plaintiffs, to build homes for tribal members in need of housing. Plaintiffs' claims arise from allegations of unpaid work. Specifically, Plaintiff Method Homes alleges an outstanding balance on two contracts: (1) $7, 377.94 under the AIA Agreement; and (2) $37, 691.90 under the Modular Home Purchase Agreement ("MHPA"); and Plaintiff Method Contracting claims $138, 276.63 in damages under the Contractor Agreement. The total alleged damages are $ 183, 346.47.

         On January 30, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the Montana Fourth Judicial Court claiming breach and waiver of an arbitration clause, breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. On June 30, 2017, Defendants answered the Complaint, and asserted Counterclaims alleging defective design, defective workmanship, breach of warranty, and breach of contract. Defendants also moved to compel arbitration. On March 1, 2017, Defendants removed the case to this Court, invoking jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

         Because the parties are familiar with the facts of this case they will only be stated as necessary to understand the Court's Order.

         Analysis

         I. Motion to Remand

         Though Plaintiffs' initially opposed Defendants removal on the grounds that the amount in controversy requirement could not be met for Method Homes, Plaintiffs now concede that the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction. (Doc. 43 at 2.)

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a federal court has jurisdiction when the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.00 and the parties are diverse. A case brought in state court may be removed to federal court only if the case could have been brought in federal court originally. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Jackson v. Southern California Gas Co., 881 F.2d 638, 641 (9th Cir. 1989). Additionally, a federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claim so "related to claims in the action within [the court's] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). In other words,

"where the other elements of jurisdiction are present and at least one named plaintiff in the action satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement, ยง 1367 does authorize supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of other plaintiffs in the same Article III case or controversy, even if those claims are for less than the jurisdictional amount specified ...

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.