Home   Federal Cases   State Cases   News   Search   Cart   Log In 
 
Search 591,341 Cases and Articles on TJV!
 
Federal Case Categories







Eldee-K Rental Properties, LLC v DIRECTV, Inc.

Case No. 11-17994 (C.A. 9, Apr. 9, 2014)

The district court dismissed Eldee-K Rental Properties, LLC’s complaint against DIRECTV, Inc. for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the district court correctly determined that Eldee-K’s action was a local action under California law, and therefore had to be brought in Connecticut where the real property at issue is located, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of this action.

I



Eldee-K Rental Properties, LLC, is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Connecticut. It owns a residential apartment building in Hartford, Connecticut.

In May 2011, Eldee-K filed a complaint against DIRECTV, a direct broadcast satellite television provider, alleging that DIRECTV has a policy of installing satellite reception equipment in common areas of apartment buildings and other multiple dwelling units (such as the building’s exterior walls or rooftop) without the landlord’s consent. According to the complaint, DIRECTV requires prospective subscribers who reside in multiple dwelling units to complete an installation form authorizing the installation of equipment in common areas. A tenant can either complete Part 1 of the form by obtaining the landlord’s signature, or Part 2 of the form by certifying that the landlord has verbally authorized the installation or that the lease does not require landlord consent. The complaint alleges that DIRECTV permanently installed equipment at Eldee-K’s apartment building, including by drilling holes in the exterior of the building, without obtaining Eldee-K’s consent. Beyond alleging that DIRECTV drilled holes in the building’s exterior, the complaint did not identify the specific common areas on its property where the installation took place.

Based on these allegations, Eldee-K sought to certify a class of all landlords who own and lease residential multiple dwelling units in the United States on which DIRECTV installed equipment based on Part 2 of its installation form. Eldee-K brought three causes of action against DIRECTV. First, Eldee-K alleged that DIRECTV violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200–10, which makes a person who engages in unfair competition subject to an injunction and other civil penalties. The complaint alleged that DIRECTV’s use of Part 2 of the installation form was an unfair business act that violated the policies embodied in California Penal Code § 602(m), which makes “[e]ntering and occupying real property or structures of any kind without the consent of the owner” a misdemeanor criminal offense. Through this claim, Eldee-K sought to enjoin DIRECTV from using Part 2 of the installation form.
 

 

Judge(s): Sandra S. Ikuta
Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Related Categories: Bankruptcy , Business Organizations , Civil Procedure , Civil Remedies , Competition , Constitutional Law , Contracts , Criminal Justice , Damages , Employment , Finance / Banking , Government / Politics , Property , Torts , Transportation
 
Circuit Court Judge(s)
Susan Black
Jerome Farris
Sandra Ikuta

 
Trial Court Judge(s)
Charles Breyer

 
Plaintiff Lawyer(s) Plaintiff Law Firm(s)
Alan Plutzik Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP
Jennifer Rosenberg Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP
Robert Izard Izard Nobel LLP
Mark Kindall Izard Nobel LLP
Jeffrey Nobel Izard Nobel LLP

 
Defendant Lawyer(s) Defendant Law Firm(s)
Alex Akerman Alston & Bird LLP
Grace Kang Alston & Bird LLP
Sayaka Karitani Alston & Bird LLP
Andrew Paris Alston & Bird LLP

 

CUSTOM EMAIL ALERTS!

With your FREE registration, you can select an unlimited number of Alert categories for daily, weekly or monthly deliveries of the Federal and State Cases most relevant
to you!

Click Here to sign up.

 



Click the maroon box above for a formatted PDF of the decision.
mortgage contract is an action for money due, and “is not as local actions and were required to be brought in the county eldee-k rental properties v. directv 5 breached a legal duty not to install its equipment in common not directly resolved the question whether the doctrine also although eldee-k concedes that its negligence claims are local, when the only damages alleged to have been suffered eldee-k rental properties v. directv6 california courts look to the substance of the lawsuit rather summary** the relief sought by the complaint further supports the alleging that directv has a policy of installing satellite charles alan wright & arthur r. miller, federal practice installed equipment based on part 2 of its installation form. claim an injury stemming from directv’s policy of using relief sought. see neet, 19 cal. 2d at 607; ophir, 147 cal. at we have also recognized the continued applicability of injunction under section 17203, which provides that “[a]ny i and injunctive relief in count ii to prohibit directv’s use though it historically acknowledged the existence of such a directv’s alleged policy, rather than its trespass on eldee- elsevier, inc. v. muchnick, 559 u.s. 154, 161 (2010) (internal therefore a local action”); le breton v. super. ct., 66 cal. 27, eldee-k rental properties, llc, is a limited liability litigated in the state where the land was situated, though a the distinction between local and transitory actions was company organized under the laws of connecticut. it owns criminal offense. through this claim, eldee-k sought to substance of eldee-k’s ucl claim relates to real property. sandra s. ikuta, circuit judges. nature); columbia river packers’ ass’n v. mcgowan, 219 f. jurisdiction focus on directv’s “unauthorized entry onto property” eldee-k rental properties v. directv10 california enshrined the local action doctrine in its state adjudicate eldee-k’s action. see ellenwood, 158 u.s. at 108. action was filed before its effective date of january 6, 2012, california’s views, as explicated in both case law and statute, section 392 currently treats as local actions “(1) [f]or the recovery of also seeking damages for fraudulent misrepresentation, the nature of eldee-k’s complaint turns on whether its to drop a prior quiet title action by falsely offering to let him 106–07. the court disagreed. after reviewing the complaint pub. l. no. 112-63, § 205, 125 stat. 758, 764–65, eldee-k question whether, under california law, eldee-k’s complaint a residential apartment building in hartford, connecticut. supposed that laws which prescribed generally where one real property, or of an estate or interest therein, or for the determination in silver mining co. v. super. ct., 147 cal. 467, 474 (1905) located. directv argued that eldee-k’s claims are local in u.s. at 107 (“by the law of england, and of those states of ellenwood. see, e.g., philadelphia co. v. stimson, 223 u.s. (e.g., actions directly affecting the title to real property or landlord approval of a directv system installation matter jurisdiction. because the district court correctly because “[o]nly congress may determine a lower federal character, either by statute or the common law, unless it was an ohio corporation for trespass on land situated in west 3 doctrine in venue decisions. see 28 u.s.c. § 1391(a)(2) eldee-k’s second and third causes of action were for were called transitory actions and could be brought in any eldee-k rental properties v. directv 11 eldee-k rental properties v. directv 9 directv from using part 2 of the installation form, because others similarly situated, & birkhaeuser, llp, walnut creek, california, for plaintiff- curtail” federalcourts’ “drive-byjurisdictional rulings,” reed eldee-k rental properties, llc, for the ninth circuit despite the clarity of hayes, later fifth circuit opinions have according to legal historians, the distinction between local v. united states, 653 f.3d 1102, 1103–04 (9th cir. 2011). which might be rendered thereon, assuming the truth of the california courts drew on common law concepts to jefferson to recover damages for trespass on real estate in complaint was for injury to the plaintiff’s real property, even plaintiff did not need to identify the location of the dispute wicker, supra, at 63), but they nevertheless persisted as part based on these allegations, eldee-k sought to certify a than how the plaintiff framed the causes of action in the 551 u.s. 205, 211 (2007) (quoting kontrick v. ryan, 540 u.s. on california’s views. the local actions listed in section 392 in washington lacked jurisdiction to enjoin a trespass and and professions code prohibits “unfair competition,” which 11 stat. 272, 272 (providing, with respect to the service of defendants’ obstruction of his right of way, “which resulted and procedure § 3822 (noting that a majority of federal federal courts. see, e.g., united states v. byrne, 291 f.3d transitory, where transactions on which they are founded, venue provision, and that state courts may transfer local rental agreement). because that statute relates to venue, not to jurisdiction. we dispute, and at least some members of every jury had to be to decide cases. witnesses, as we use them today, played no use that easement. see 32 cal. app. 2d 103, 104–05 (1939). a connecticut limited liability county in england. see id. at 61–62. by the late 18th state where the property is located. november 7, 2013—san francisco, california counsel an action to enjoin injuries to real propertythrough trespasses as to when an action constitutes a local action for purposes of because actions that are local in character must be brought california, for defendant-appellee. existing common law principles, see ophir, 147 cal. at 474; directv installation form violates” the ucl. in count i corporation, 1 cowp. 161, 176 (k.b.) (op. of lord mansfield) (quoted in andrew e. paris (argued), grace w. kang, sayaka karitani, eldee-k argues that we should not rely on the cases affirm the district court’s dismissal of this action. to the extent they have reached the issue, other circuit distinction between local and transitory actions. see ophir act to this day, see cal. civ. proc. code § 392,3 like most states, california adopted the common law we are bound by ellenwood until either the supreme court law incorporates the local action doctrine. as the court trespass, as in ellenwood, then the action was transitory and john marshall, sitting as a circuit judge in virginia, held that trespass on its real property, the harm to its real property is place of trial.” henry j. labatt, the california practice act (1896). consent.1 owner’s consent. each of these allegations is based on an § 1391(a)(2)is not directlyapplicableherebecauseeldee-k’s doctrine is jurisdictional in nature. result of the unfair competition.” id. § 17204. e&p, inc., 609 f.3d 710, 721 n.4 (5th cir. 2010) (noting, without doctrine, and has referenced it in cases decided after justice in this state,” commonly known as the practice act, marietta chair co., 158 u.s. 105, 107–08 (1895). in a person “[e]ntering and occupying real property” without the 605, 622 (1912) (holding that a district of columbia court determine whether the substance of the action relates to real within the state in which the land lies.” id. at 107. because competition’ on its nationwide policy of accepting sham of our own subject matter jurisdiction, which is purely a (“except as otherwise provided by law— . . . the proper to its ucl claim and does not render the complaint as a because the defendants had previously induced the plaintiff claim. the district court thereforedismissed it with prejudice person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in section 392 of the california code of civil procedure, an installation form authorizing the installation of equipment reasons, the action was not “to restrain trespass” as in the complaint alleges that directv permanently actions to other courts within the state. cal. civ. proc. code the local action doctrine in determining the jurisdiction of action against a trustee to enforce a trust on real property is eldee-k’s real property. accordingly, the relief sought is in the local action doctrine vests exclusive jurisdiction over ellenwood); dull v. blackman, 169 u.s. 243, 246–47 (1898) enabling the illegal installation of the equipment in and on subscribers who reside in multiple dwelling units to complete principles that an action for damages from breach of a “(2) [f]or the foreclosure of all liens and mortgages on real property.” cal. doctrine runs to the jurisdiction or the venue of a court”). an earlier version of section 392 also deemed local actions “[f]or the at _________ (address) has been verbally approved by cross mining & milling co. v. spiers, 115 cal. 247, 250 damages for the conduct. exterior walls or rooftop) without the landlord’s consent. llc’s complaint against directv, inc. for lack of subject the union whose jurisprudence is based upon the common pursuant to part 2 of the installation form. because “the key directv, inc. and fact for purposes of establishing a class action include the to enjoin. eldee-k thus views “the unfairness” of see also 14d form by obtaining the landlord’s signature, or part 2 of the defendants.” id. therefore, the entire action was local. id. installation form is the alleged injury to eldee-k’s real a property through the unauthorized installation of equipment. united states on which directv installed equipment. is a local action relating to real property in connecticut. to harm” in the complaint related to trespass on real property argues that if congress has concluded that the local action under the ucl to be brought “by a person who has suffered insufficient to overrule supreme court precedent. venue and eldee-k rental properties v. directv 19 was local). all other actions are transitory. see golden not local). 150 cal. 466, 472–73 (1907) (concluding that an action for relief sought. such a determination on our jurisdiction. , and to determine whether a particular action relates to real directv’s actions are inconsistent with california penal 443, 452 (2004)) (internal quotation marks omitted). but of the complaint, eldee-k alleges that directv violated the consents through its installation form,” which eldee-k seeks substance an injunction against further trespass, which action doctrine, see id. at 664, he acknowledged that under california law, there are three broad categories of jurisdiction.” cal. bus. & prof. code § 17203. to maintain “where the thing on which they are founded is situated.” id. partition of real property.” cal. civ. proc. code § 392 (1872). to directv), eldee-k cannot point to any such injury. copper co. v. james f. howarth co., 261 f. 567, 569 (9th eldee-k rental properties v. directv14 absent such relief “directv will continue to engage in for this reason, a plaintiff had to plead the location of the circuit or district court of either district, and the court . . . eldee-k rental properties v. directv12 possession of, quieting the title to, or for the enforcement of though the second cause of action was framed as one for laws of this state, is the rule of decision in all the courts of and alex akerman, alston & bird llp, los angeles, congress has not directly spoken on whether federal courts’ nature. because the real property at issue is in connecticut, courts started to relax the rules requiring jurors to come from and immovable” as local). accordingly, we are bound by crb constrains the jurisdiction of federal courts. see raphael j. 4 ucl by adopting practices “with the purpose and effect of eldee-k rental properties v. directv8 statute provide california’s views regarding the sort of dismissals of actions based on rule 12(b)(1). viewtech, inc. competition subject to an injunction and other civil penalties. and other multiple dwelling units (such as the building’s b see also cal. civ. code § 22.2 (“the common law of nature, and therefore must be brought in connecticut, the class.” further, the complaint alleges that the injury suffered plaintiff-appellant, for publication pomin, for instance, plaintiff sought to quiet title to an determined that eldee-k’s action was a local action under the old rules were maintained, however, for actions government’s statutory authority to encroach on the eldee-k rental properties v. directv2 situated” because the action was local); josevig-kennecott it defines to include, in relevant part, “any unlawful, unfair or without the landlord’s consent. eldee-k sought declaratory virginia. id. at 106, 108. the court sua sponte dismissed the the same state, the plaintiff may bring his action or suit in the 2d at 108, and therefore the allegations demonstrate that the sought in its complaint indicate that the essence of eldee-k’s jurisdiction had been made by demurrer or plea.” id. at 108. confirms that eldee-k’s ucl claim is local. see id. 3:11-cv-02416- 1851, during the earliest days of its statehood, california dispute that “did not operate directlyupon the lands” could be louisiana. see 15 fed. cas. at 665. although chief justice fraudulent misrepresentation. id. at 108. the court reasoned were outmoded, see, e.g., mostyn v. fabrigas, (1774) 1 property where the installation took place. common law local action doctrine. see, e.g., ellenwood, 158 33, 39–41 (2d ed. 1858) (providing the text of section 18 of california treats the local action doctrine as a venue to adjudicate an action against former president thomas eldee-k brought three causes of action against directv. this state.”), and the state judicial decisions interpreting the reveal that the substance of the claim relates to real property. of english common law. opinion whole local. venue for a civil action shall be determined without regard to a local action for purposes of considering the court’s explained, “[t]he distinction between local and transitory the local action doctrine in this context, it is helpful to review jurisdictional limitation. see act of may 4, 1858, ch. 27, involving real property in the forum where that property is property taken, rather than stating a claim for trespass that of the county where the property at issue was located. id. at own and lease residential multiple dwelling units in the eldee-k, which owns a residential apartment building in §§ 17200–10, which makes a person who engages in unfair of any kind without the consent of the owner” a misdemeanor held that, where the gravamen of an action is conversion of connecticut where the real property at issue is located, we directv drilled holes in the building’s exterior, the grocers’ fruit growing union v. kern cnty. land co., unfair competition law (ucl), cal. bus. & prof. code law, an action for trespass upon land, like an action to recover property, we consider the allegations of the complaint and the california’s procedural rules have no effect on our analysis connected with real property, and courts still required jurisdiction over the action unless the suit was local in a federal court in virginia lacked subject matter jurisdiction some or all of these unfair acts.” cf. ophir, 147 cal. at 477. discussing hayes, that “questions remain as to whether the local action recognized as part of american common law in the leading although such an inference is reasonable, inference alone is the local action doctrine has an ancient heritage. action for damages to realty situated in the state of nevada argued and submitted involving “the rights of real property, the subject being fixed drawn from that location. see wicker, supra, at 55, 59–60. have been brought in the county where they resided, instead determine which sorts of actions were local in nature for might have taken place anywhere; but are local where their because the gravamen of the claim is that “directv according to the complaint, part 2 of directv’s installation release action for lack of jurisdiction, because “an action for trespass no. 11-17994 code § 602(m), which criminalizes trespasses committed by eldee-k rental properties v. directv4 located. the honorable susan h. black, senior circuit judge for the u.s. court lies partly in one district and partly in another district, within determination that the local action doctrine is jurisdictional. after witnesses began to testify during the 15th century, the district court here lacked subject matter jurisdiction to d.c. no. can be maintained in the courts of california.”). indeed, from before: jerome farris, susan h. black* eldee-k points out that congress has recently amended eldee-k rental properties v. directv 15 my landlord (or is not required pursuant to my lease or company, on behalf of itself and all had jurisdiction over a dispute regarding the federal allegations of the complaint” and “the nature of the judgment lies.”); huntington, 146 u.s. at 669 (referring to actions the federal venue statutes to eliminate use of the local action that the federal court “had no jurisdiction of the cause of recently clarified that judge-made rules are not jurisdictional role in court. see id. at 55–56; cf. livingston v. jefferson, subject matter jurisdiction are distinct concepts, and [multiple dwelling units] upon receipt of part 2 of the areas of apartment buildings owned by the putative class 2 suggested that the question whether the local action doctrine relates to connecticut, sought to certify a class of all landlords who because california law governs whether this action is actions, 4 tenn. l. rev. 55, 58–59 (1925). before the 15th courts have concluded that the local action doctrine is a rule common law, including the rule “that actions are deemed 32 cal. app. 2d at 108 (holding that a fraud claim was local 146 u.s. 657, 669–70 (1892), we now review california’s plaintiffs to plead and prove the location where these causes context does not overrule the supreme court’s prior jurisdictional); hayes v. gulf oil corp., 821 f.2d 285, 287 exclusive jurisdiction over specified types of actions property is generally coterminous with the states’ political eldee-k’s claims under the local action doctrine, which vests the “entire cause of action was local,” the court concluded 182 (1897). but the supreme court has not overruled the allowing a national bank to be sued in any jurisdiction where the supreme court has sometimes applied this doctrine first, eldee-k alleged that directv violated california’s not merely incidental to its ucl claim. see strosnider, the vicinity of the dispute. see id. at 55–57, 60. the complaint does not contain the text of part 1 of the form. or congress enacts an applicable jurisdictional statute. eldee-k rental properties v. directv 17 the district court dismissed eldee-k rental properties, of appeals for the eleventh circuit, sitting by designation. california has retained a version of section 18 of the practice the bank is located as pertaining to transitory actions only, doctrine does not affect a federal court’s venue, a fortiori the complaint did not identify the specific common areas on its the specific performance of a contract to convey land was “an “an act to regulate proceedings in civil cases in the courts of misrepresentation claim was transitory, the entire suit should civ. proc. code § 392. directv, a direct broadcast satellite television provider, expressly so declared.” casey v. adams, 102 u.s. 66, 67–68 opinion by judge ikuta this summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. it has which passed on april 29, 1851). about 28 years later, brought in connecticut where the real property at issue was eldee-k argues that its ucl claim is transitory, not local, developmentof thedistinction betweenlocalandtransitory claim under california’s unfair competition law (ucl) is filed april 9, 2014 statutory definition of local actions provide further guidance 29–30 (1884) (adopting the common law principle that an to determine whether the district court correctly applied cir. 1919) (discussing whether the action was local or california law, and therefore had to be brought in limited its courts to hearing local actions that arose “in the complaint. see ophir, 147 cal. at 473–77. in strosnider v. 477. the allegations in support of eldee-k’s ucl claim ** appeal from the united states district court the local action doctrine was not applicable. 167 u.s. 178, unfair competition”). the only injury eldee-k has pointed to eldee-k rental properties v. directv16 a claim under section 17203, eldee-k must show it “has part 2 of the installation form (on the ground, for example, the supreme court subsequently confirmed that federal ucl claim is a trespass, which is a local action under purposes of implementingthese provisions. see, e.g., samuel according to the complaint, directv requires prospective (noting that a dispute was a local action and had to be action or actions is situated.” cal. const. art. vi, § 5 (1879). * jeffrey s. nobel, robert a. izard (argued), and mark p. is situated, subject to the power of the court to change the our conclusion that the local action doctrine is section 17200 of the california business century, jurors relied on their personal knowledge of a dispute easement over real property owned by the defendants while of subject matter jurisdiction). those circuit courts that have according to the defendants, because the fraudulent charles r. breyer, senior district judge, presiding where the land or other subject-matter of a fixed character directly operating on real estate or personal actions closely liens upon real estate, shall be commenced in the county in because the only injury eldee-k claims to have suffered is a property” and thus local); ophir, 147 cal. at 476 (holding that we consider both the complaint’s allegations and the california’s determination as to the nature of an action upon land, like an action to recover the title or the possession actions that are local in nature. section 392 codified then- process, that “in all cases of a local nature at law or in equity without obtaining eldee-k’s consent. beyond alleging that sought damages for the harm to the land caused by the doctrine should not affect a federal court’s jurisdiction. been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. as a whole, the court concluded that the substance of the the history and current status of this longstanding rule. by eldee-k is the “unauthorized use of common or restricted appellant. (1880). accordingly, the court interpreted a federal statute opinion that the gravamen of the plaintiff’s complaint was the unauthorized trespass on its apartment building’s common real property situated in a different state. see ellenwood v. actions is as old as actions themselves, and no one has ever the district court agreed. it read eldee-k’s complaint to (recognizing that only congress may define the lower federal jurisdictional in nature, and not merely a rule of venue that (whether local or transitory), we are also bound by areas of [its] property.” finally, the complaint alleges that the [multiple dwelling units] of plaintiff and members of the local action under california law, and therefore had to be 28 u.s.c. § 1291. we review de novo district court for a determination of which types of actions are deemed to in common areas. a tenant can either complete part 1 of the the title or the possession of the land itself, is a local action negligence. eldee-k alleged that directv negligently local or transitory in nature, see huntington v. attrill, directv moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground action doctrine deprived it of jurisdiction to adjudicate the courts’ subject matter jurisdiction). we look to state law only also ophir, 147 cal. at 476–77. in conducting this analysis, action doctrine is jurisdictional. the panel also held that it policies embodied in california penal code § 602(m), which american law had incorporated “the ancient rules” of english local actions: (1) actions to recover or determine rights or in may 2011, eldee-k filed a complaint against explicating california’s local action doctrine as set forth in the installation or that the lease does not require landlord v. allen, 98 cal. 406, 407–08 (1893) (relying on common law 15 fed. cas. 660, 663 (c.c.d. va. 1811) (op. of marshall, j.). action, and for this reason, if for no other, rightly ordered the law on this issue. countyin which the subject of the action or some part thereof, which the real estate, or any part thereof, affected by such although it remedy a trespass to land. through its ucl claim, eldee-k stemmed from an “injur[y] [to] the real property of cause is in its nature necessarily local,” id. at 664–65. 669. eldee-k rental properties v. directv18 (5th cir. 1987) (recognizing that “federaland state courts lack allegations.” neet v. holmes, 19 cal. 2d 605, 607 (1942); see suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a situated in connecticut, the district court held that the local where the real estate was located, while actions for which the § 392(a). in other words, eldee-k contends that because injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the federal court lacked jurisdiction over a local action involving 15th and 16th centuries. see william h. wicker, the form provides that 12(b)(1) dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of that such a policy provides an unfair competitive advantage class of all landlords who own and lease residential multiple local or transitory.4 courts generally agree that the local action doctrine is shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide the same . . . as fully althoughadirectcompetitorofdirectv couldconceivably narrowly. in stone v. united states, for instance, the court california’s determination that the local action doctrine is a eldee-k rental properties, llc’s complaint against transitory, and acknowledging that the district court had as if the land or other subject-matter were wholly within the the constitution of the united states, or the constitution or eldee-k rental properties v. directv 3 the panel affirmed the district court’s fed. r. civ. p. ‘engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair form by certifying that the landlord has verbally authorized policy, eldee-k had to allege a loss of money or property. property; and (3) actions to foreclose on liens and mortgages venue without directly addressing jurisdictional issues). musicus, inc. v. safeway stores, inc., 743 f.2d 503, 506 (7th we have jurisdiction to review eldee-k’s appeal under brought in a different state). at 110. eldee-k rental properties v. directv 7 england, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with first, the complaint alleges that the common questions of law decisions in england and the united states, hold that an marshall expressed skepticism about the value of the local property and thus is local, california courts assess “the v. question of federal law. see kontrick, 540 u.s. at 452 involving injury to real property) are consistent with the seeks injunctive and other equitable relief to enjoin interests in real property; (2) actions to remedyinjuries to real was bound by california law as to when an action constituted acts alleged in the complaint is directv’s trespass on makes “[e]ntering and occupying real property or structures considering our jurisdiction. see huntington, 146 u.s. at united states court of appeals ikuta, circuit judge: of the land itself, is a local action, and can only be brought question “[w]hether directv’s installation and jurisdiction over the subject matter of claims to land located eldee-k also argues that because we are bound by disagree. both section 392 and the cases interpreting this discussed the local action doctrine as a matter of venue have quotation marks omitted), we do not read these out-of-circuit decisions as providing guidance as to whether the local action abate a nuisance where the injury and conduct occurred in specified types of actions involving real propertyin the forum have made for ourselves, as well as the long course of with these principles in mind, we now turn to the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.” bowles v. russell, installed equipment at eldee-k’s apartment building, district for which such court is constituted”). oregon). and can only be brought within the state in which the land k property, to be the focus of its ucl claim. eldee-k ellenwood, the court considered an action brought in a affirmed. 1056, 1060 (9th cir. 2002) (observing that “the federal dwelling units in the united states on which directv from the dismissal of the prior action through the fraud of can be waived. see bigio v. coca-cola co., 239 f.3d 440, cir. 1984) (applying the local action doctrine as a matter of reception equipment in common areas of apartment buildings california would treat its entire action as transitory if its unfair r. plutzik and jennifer rosenberg, bramson, plutzik, mahler that was caused by directv’s use of part 2 of its should be sued, included such suits as were local in their jurisdictional is not free from doubt. the supreme court has 443 (2nd cir. 2000) (assuming the local action doctrine is any form, of that right or interest, and for injuries to real property” and competition claim is transitory. smith v. smith, 88 cal. 572, 576 (1891). case of livingston v. jefferson. in this case, chief justice ii for the northern district of california 365, 372–73, 376 (9th cir. 1914) (holding that a district court iii jurisdiction is constrained by the local action doctrine, even case was “properly exercised in the state where the land is outside the state in which the court sits”);2 of action arose. see id. at 62. such actions were referred to where the property is located. the panel held that the local and transitory actions began to arise in england during the fraudulent business act or practice.” eldee-k seeks an kindall, izard nobel llp, west hartford, connecticut; alan claims are also local, and therefore its entire action is local in enjoin directv from using part 2 of the installation form. of its part 2 policy. in its third count, eldee-k sought jurisdiction. the panel held that eldee-k’s action was a california law. eldee-k has conceded that its two negligence (“we could not . . . without disregarding the law which we repealed the constitutional provision in 1966. because the supreme court has indicated a “marked desire to plaintiff’s property in pennsylvania because, among other constitution, requiring “that all actions for recovery of the congress’s rejection of the local action doctrine in the venue jurisdiction or venue remains unresolved. see, e.g., bailey v. shell w. reading the complaint as a whole, the substance of the unfair eldee-k rental properties v. directv 13 whether the action is local or transitory in nature.”). while including by drilling holes in the exterior of the building, district courts’ jurisdiction over actions concerning real conclusion that the substance of eldee-k’s ucl claim is to be local in nature, but state law does not control the effect of in a subsequent opinion, the supreme court confirmed that a taken together, eldee-k’s allegations and the relief directv, inc., a delaware federal circuit court in the southern district of ohio against under rule 12(b)(1) of the federal rules of civil procedure. case to be stricken from its docket, although no question of that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff”). we disagree. to have standing to challenge directv’s century, leading jurists had observed that these distinctions on real property. see cal. civ. proc. code § 392(a); see also unfair competition may be enjoined in [a] court of competent maintenance of equipment at plaintiff’s and class members’ eldee-k timely appealed. rules otherwise, agostini v. felton, 521 u.s. 203, 237 (1997), lumber and the complaint demanded the value of the personal boundaries,” and holding that the court’s jurisdiction in that the complaint alleged that directv’s use of part 2 of the defendant-appellee. areas, cf. ophir, 147 cal. at 476–77; strosnider, 32 cal. app. injury to the plaintiff’s real property by directv’s action for the determination of a right or interest in real see cal. bus. & prof. code § 17204 (permitting an action contends that the injuryto real propertyis “merelyincidental” provision, we should do the same. again we disagree. installation form was an unfair business act that violated the


All Content © 2007-2012 The Judicial View, L.L.C. All Right Reserved.
About The Judicial View ®  | Privacy Policy   |  Terms of Use   |  Contact Us  |  Advertise