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.

LLC v. Elliott

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

August 17, 2017

Noah's Ark Processors, LLC and Noah's Ark Holding Company, LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
Robert R. Elliott, Defendant.

          William M. Topka, Esq., and Robert B. Bauer, Esq., Dougherty, Molenda, Solfest, Hills & Bauer P.A., Apple Valley, MN, on behalf of Plaintiff.

          Robert R. Elliott, pro se.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          ANN D. MONTGOMERY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter before the undersigned United States District Judge for a ruling on Defendant Robert Elliott's (“Elliott”) Objection [Docket No. 12] to Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz's May 25, 2017 Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 2] (“R&R”). Elliott objects to Judge Schultz's recommendation to remand this action to state court. For reasons set forth below, Elliott's objection is overruled.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Elliott is a member of Noah's Ark Processors, LLC and Noah's Ark Holding Company (collectively, “Noah's Ark” or the “Companies”). Am. Compl. [Docket No. 1-2] ¶ 7. On January 3, 2014, the Companies' operating agreements were amended in two respects Am. Compl. ¶ 11. A forum selection clause was added to require that disputes between Noah's Ark members or between members and the Companies be adjudicated in the Fourth District of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Id. The amendment also added a jury waiver, which required members to waive their right to trial by jury in suits against other members or against Noah's Ark. Id. Although Elliott voted against the amendment, the amendment passed. Id.

         On March 24, 2017, Noah's Ark filed a declaratory judgment action in the Fourth District of Hennepin County, seeking an order declaring the amendment to be valid. Am. Compl. ¶17. On May 15, 2017, Elliottt removed the case to federal court, citing federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

         On May 24, 2017, Judge Schultz sua sponte recommended the case be remanded to state court for lack of jurisdiction. R&R at 1. Judge Schultz determined that Elliottt's removal was based upon an anticipated federal defense, which is not a valid basis for jurisdiction under § 1331. Id. at 2.

         Elliottt objects to Judge Schultz's conclusion that federal question jurisdiction is lacking.[1]Elliottt argues that federal question jurisdiction is present because the complaint should be read as “arising under” the Constitution because it directly implicates constitutional protections, or because resolution of the case involves a substantial question of federal law. Obj. at 5-9, 13-16. Elliottt also argues that jurisdiction is proper under the “natural plaintiff” theory. Id. at 13-19.

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Standard of Review

         The standard of review of a magistrate judge's order on a dispositive issue is de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); D. Minn. LR 72.2. “The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” D. Minn L.R. 72.2(b).

         B. Federal ...


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.