United States District Court, D. Minnesota
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND, GRANTING MOTION TO
STRIKE, AND DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Wilhelmina M. Wright United States District Judge
In this
wrongful-death action, Plaintiff Donna Cahoon moves to remand
this case to Dakota County District Court, First Judicial
District, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. 32.)
Defendant Carpentry Contractors Company opposes Cahoon's
motion to remand and moves to dismiss Cahoon's claim
against it. (Dkt. 36.) Defendant Quality Propane of MN moves
to strike Cahoon's second amended complaint and to
dismiss Cahoon's claim against it. (Dkts. 45, 46.) For
the reasons addressed below, the motion to remand is denied,
the motion to strike is granted, and the motions to dismiss
are denied.
BACKGROUND
Christopher
John Cahoon (Decedent) sustained fatal injuries as a result
of a propane gas flash fire in Lakeville, Minnesota, on or
about January 21, 2016. The purported cause of the flash fire
was a gas leak in a propane heater. The flash fire allegedly
occurred during the course and scope of Decedent's
employment as a manager of a residential construction site.
Donna Cahoon was appointed to serve as trustee for
Decedent's next of kin in February 2016. At all times
relevant to this case, Decedent and Cahoon are or were
Minnesota residents.
Cahoon
commenced this wrongful-death action in Dakota County
District Court, First Judicial District, on December 21,
2018, against Defendants L.B. White Company,
Inc.[1]
(L.B. White); Hurricane Products, Inc. (Hurricane); Quality
Propane of MN (Quality Propane); and Carpentry Contractors
Company (Carpentry). Cahoon subsequently filed an amended
complaint dated January 9, 2019. The amended complaint
alleges four counts under Minnesota's wrongful-death
statute, Minn. Stat. § 573.02. Count I alleges that L.B.
White negligently designed, manufactured, and sold the
propane heater that caused Decedent's injuries and death
and failed to warn of the propane heater's hazards and
defects. Count II alleges that Hurricane, in turn,
negligently designed, manufactured, and sold a component part
of the propane heater. Count III alleges that Quality Propane
negligently failed to maintain, service, repair, modify, and
inspect the propane heater. And Count IV alleges that
Carpentry negligently “failed to exercise reasonable
care and caution upon arrival to the [flash fire] incident
site . . . after discovering and recognizing a known
hazardous propane (LP) gas leak.”
On
January 22, 2019, Carpentry removed the case to this Court
based on diversity jurisdiction. Cahoon filed a second
amended complaint on February 1, 2019. Cahoon now moves to
remand the case to Dakota County District Court, First
Judicial District, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,
arguing that Carpentry has not established complete diversity
of the parties because both Cahoon and Carpentry are citizens
of Minnesota. Carpentry opposes Cahoon's motion to remand
and moves to dismiss Cahoon's claim against it. And
Quality Propane moves to strike Cahoon's second amended
complaint and to dismiss Cahoon's claim against it.
ANALYSIS
I.
Motion to Remand
Cahoon
argues that this case must be remanded to Dakota County
District Court, First Judicial District, because this Court
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. According to Cahoon,
Carpentry is a citizen of Minnesota and, therefore, diversity
does not exist between Cahoon and Carpentry. Carpentry
counters that, because “Carpentry Contractors
Company” is an “assumed name” that is not a
legal entity subject to suit, Carpentry is not a citizen of
Minnesota and this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this
case.
“If
at any time before final judgment it appears that the
district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case
shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Diversity
jurisdiction exists when the matter in controversy exceeds
$75, 000 and the parties are citizens of different states. 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a). “Complete diversity of
citizenship exists where no defendant holds citizenship in
the same state where any plaintiff holds citizenship.”
OnePoint Sols., LLC v. Borchert, 486 F.3d 342, 346
(8th Cir. 2007). Removal to federal court is appropriate only
when the federal court would have original jurisdiction over
the litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Caterpillar,
Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). It is the
removing party's burden to establish by a preponderance
of the evidence that federal jurisdiction exists. Pub.
Sch. Ret. Sys. of Mo. v. State Street Bank & Tr.
Co., 640 F.3d 821, 825-26 (8th Cir. 2011); In re
Bus. Men's Assurance Co. of Am., 992 F.2d 181, 183
(8th Cir. 1993). When assessing the existence of diversity
jurisdiction, “a federal court must disregard nominal
or formal parties and rest jurisdiction only upon the
citizenship of real parties to the controversy.”
Navarro Sav. Ass'n v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458, 461
(1980).
Cahoon
argues that complete diversity does not exist here because
both she and Carpentry are citizens of Minnesota. Carpentry
contends that, because it is an “assumed name”
that is not a legal entity subject to suit, it does
not have Minnesota citizenship and its presence in
this lawsuit is immaterial to the existence of diversity
jurisdiction.
As
relevant here, a defendant's capacity to be sued is
determined based on “the law of the state where the
court is located.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(b)(3). Under
Minnesota law, a person or entity is prohibited from
conducting business under an assumed name unless the person
or entity files “a certificate setting forth the name
and business address under which the business is conducted or
transacted.” Minn. Stat. § 333.01; accord
Northland Temps., Inc. v. Turpin, 744 N.W.2d 398, 404
(Minn.Ct.App. 2008). An assumed name “is not itself a
legal entity;” rather, an assumed name is “a
label-a marketing tool.” DeVary v. Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc., 701 F.Supp.2d 1096, 1104 (D. Minn. 2010)
(citing Minn. Stat. § 333.01); accord D.W. v.
Radisson Plaza Hotel Rochester, 958 F.Supp. 1368, 1382
(D. Minn. 1997) (dismissing “assumed name”
defendant because an assumed name is not a legal entity
subject to suit).
In her
amended complaint, Cahoon alleges that Carpenter “is a
domestic corporation licensed to do and doing business in the
State of Minnesota.” But Carpenter denies that it is a
corporation licensed to do business in Minnesota and presents
evidence that it is registered with the Minnesota Secretary
of State as an “assumed name” under which
BEP/Lyman LLC (BEP/Lyman) does business in
Minnesota.[2] Cahoon presents no evidence to the
contrary. Because an “assumed name” such as
Carpentry is not a legal entity subject to suit under
Minnesota law, complete diversity is not defeated by virtue
of Cahoon naming Carpentry as a defendant in this lawsuit.
For
these reasons, Carpentry has established by a preponderance
of the evidence that diversity jurisdiction exists in this
...