United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Repco Inc. d/b/a Peterson Enterprises, Plaintiff,
Flexan, LLC, Defendant.
Jeffrey J. Bouslog, Esq., Peter D. Stiteler, Esq. and Fox
Rothschild, LLP,, counsel for plaintiff.
Charles N. Nauen, Esq., Rachel Ann Kitze Collins, Esq. and
Lockridge Grindal Nauen, PLLP, 100 Washington Avenue South,
Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401; Brittany Whitesell Biles,
Esq. and Stein Mitchell Beate & Missner LLP, counsel for
S. DOTY, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
matter is before the court upon the motion to remand by
plaintiff Repco, Inc. and the motion to dismiss by defendant
Flexan, LLC. Based on a review of the file, record, and
proceedings herein, and for the following reasons, the court
grants the motion to remand and denies the motion to dismiss
unfair competition dispute arises out Flexan's
termination of Repco as its regional sales representative,
and Flexan's alleged interference in Repco's business
relationship with a third-party, Qure. Flexan is an Illinois
company that manufactures silicone and thermoplastic medical
devices. Removal Pet. ¶ 1. Repco is a Minnesota
corporation, specializing in medical device sales.
Id. ¶ 2.
23, 2018, Repco served the complaint on Flexan. Id.
¶ 7. The complaint states that Repco seeks more than
$50, 000 in damages. Compl. at 7. On August 15, 2018, Repco
sent Flexan a demand letter representing that it suffered
over $3, 000, 000 in damages. Bouslog Decl. Ex. 5.
November 16, 2018, Repco filed the complaint in Hennepin
County District Court. Removal Pet. ¶ 9. On December 28,
2018, Repco served its initial disclosures, again
representing that it suffered over $3, 000, 000 in damages.
Id. ¶ 10; see also Id. Ex. 2 at 3. On
January 7, 2019, Flexan removed the case. Id. Repco
now moves for remand, arguing that removal was untimely.
parties do not dispute that they are diverse and that the
amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000. The sole issue is
whether Flexan timely removed within the thirty-day period
prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Because the complaint
does not expressly seek more than $75, 000 in damages, the
question is whether Flexan should have known that removal was
possible within the removal period. Repco argues that the
removal period began when Flexan received the demand letter
in August 2018. Flexan responds that the removal period did
not commence until Repco served its initial disclosures in
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and subject matter
jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry for all actions.
Thomas v. Basham, 931 F.2d 521, 522 (8th
Cir. 1991). Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1332 requires that the matter in controversy exceed $75, 000,
exclusive of interest and costs, and that complete diversity
of citizenship exist between the parties. A party may timely
remove a civil action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).
relevant deadline for removal is set forth in 28 U.S.C.
If the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable,
a notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after
receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a
copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper
from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one
which is or has become removable ....
opposing removal may bring a motion requesting that the
federal court remand the case back to state court. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c). On a motion to remand, the party seeking
removal bears the burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction. In re Bus. Men'sAssur. Co. of
Am., 992 F.2d 181, 183 ...