Mueller v. Radioshack Corp.

12 Citing cases

  1. Geronimo Energy, LLC v. Polz

    Civil No. 16-3901 (DWF/LIB) (D. Minn. Feb. 27, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    McGuire v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 108 F. Supp. 3d 680, 686 (D. Minn. 2015). The value of future legal services may also be considered for purposes of determining jurisdiction, so long as such future attorney fees are reasonable. Mueller v. RadioShack Corp., Civ. No. 11-0653, 2011 WL 6826421, at *1-2 (D. Minn. Dec. 28, 2011). The requirement has been met when the party asserting federal jurisdiction demonstrates that the amount in controversy might exceed $75,000.

  2. Micek v. Mayo Clinic

    21-CV-0436 (PJS/ECW) (D. Minn. Nov. 12, 2021)

    But “the chances of all of these contingencies being fulfilled are small, ” and thus the Court cannot find that Dr. Walker's or NWWR's interests will be impaired “as a practical matter.” See Mueller v. RadioShack Corp., No. 11-CV-0653 (PJS/JJG), 2011 WL 6826421, at *3 (D. Minn. Dec. 28, 2011).

  3. Pickett v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co.

    4:21-cv-00563-SRC (E.D. Mo. Oct. 1, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Mueller v. RadioShack Corp., No. 11-CV-0653 PJS/JJG, 2011 WL 6826421, at *3 (D. Minn. Dec. 28, 2011).

  4. Klucas v. M.H. Graff & Assocs.

    Case No. 20-cv-00762 (SRN/TNL) (D. Minn. Oct. 26, 2020)   Cited 5 times

    See Zellner-Dion v. Wilmington Fin., Inc., No. 10-CV-2587 (PJS/JSM), 2012 WL 2952251, at *3 (D. Minn. July 19, 2012) ("The proponent of federal jurisdiction is not required to prove that damages will exceed the jurisdictional amount. . . . [T]he proponent need prove what is possible, not what is likely."); cf. Mueller v. RadioShack Corp., No. 11-CV-0653 (PJS/JJG), 2011 WL 6826421, at *2 (D. Minn. Dec. 28, 2011) ("In this Court's experience, it is a rare case that can be litigated in federal court through even the summary-judgment stage for less than $17,300. This Court has regularly awarded far more than $17,300 in fees in cases that were resolved at or before the summary-judgment stage.").

  5. TallBear v. Soldi Inc.

    Case No. 19-CV-2789 (SRN/TNL) (D. Minn. May. 14, 2020)

    Courts must determine jurisdiction "at the time of removal, even though subsequent events may remove from the case the facts on which jurisdiction was predicated." McLain v. Andersen Corp., 567 F.3d 956, 965 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Quinn v. Ocwen Fed. Bank FSB, 470 F.3d 1240, 1248 (8th Cir. 2006)); Knudson v. Sys. Painters, Inc., 634 F.3d 968, 975 (8th Cir. 2011); Schubert v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 649 F.3d 817, 822 (8th Cir. 2011) (emphasizing "[i]t is axiomatic that the court's jurisdiction is measured either at the time the action is commenced or, more pertinent to this case, at the time of removal"); Mueller v. RadioShack Corp., No. 11-cv-0653 (PJS/JJG), 2011 WL 6826421, at *1, n. 2 (D. Minn. Dec. 28, 2011) (denying remand and noting the "jurisdiction inquiry focuses on the claims made at the time of removal") (citing James Neff Kramper Family Farm P'ship v. IBP, Inc., 393 F.3d 828, 834 (8th Cir. 2005) (emphasis in original)). b. Federal-Question Jurisdiction

  6. Walker v. N.Y. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co.

    Case No. 4:17-cv-00769-NKL (W.D. Mo. Oct. 2, 2017)

    Yet, some other district court decisions within the Eighth Circuit, including one decision from this district, have looked not to those attorney fees incurred at the outset, but to those fees that might be incurred by the end of the litigation. See Robertson v. Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., No. 13-00712, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193303, at *7 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 30, 2014) ("[u]sing likely reasonable fees as the standard" for determining whether legal fees could put the amount in controversy over the jurisdictional threshold); Mueller v. Radioshack Corp., No. 11-0653, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148802, at *8 (D. Minn. Dec. 28, 2011) (considering "likely future attorney's fees for purposes of determining the amount in controversy"); Feller v. Hartford Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 817 F. Supp. 2d 1097, 1107 (S.D. Iowa 2010) (finding that "it is rational to include the future legal expenses in calculating the amount in controversy"). Under either methodology, New York Marine has failed to establish that Mr. Walker's attorneys' fees would be sufficiently high to confer federal jurisdiction.

  7. Mobile Mini, Inc. v. Vevea

    Civil No. 17-1684 (JRT/KMM) (D. Minn. Jul. 25, 2017)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    While the Eighth Circuit has not squarely decided the matter in a reported opinion, the Court notes that the overwhelming weight of local authority recognizes that reasonable future attorney fees, when recoverable as damages, are part of the "amount in controversy" and should be considered to establish diversity jurisdiction. See, e.g., Skoda v. Lilly USA LLC, 488 F. App'x 161, 164 (8th Cir. 2012); Geronimo Energy, LLC v. Polz, No. 16-3901, 2017 WL 758924, at *2 (D. Minn. Feb. 27, 2017); Mueller v. RadioShack Corp., No. 11-0653, 2011 WL 6826421, at *2 (D. Minn. Dec. 28, 2011); Delsing v. Starbucks Coffee Corp., No. 08-1154, 2010 WL 1507642, at *3 (D. Minn. Apr. 14, 2010); Feller v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 817 F. Supp. 2d 1097, 1104-08 (S.D. Iowa 2010). The Court finds these cases persuasive and rejects the Seventh Circuit's position on this question.

  8. Hillesheim v. Casey's Retail Co.

    Case No. 16-CV-0061 (PJS/FLN) (D. Minn. Jul. 6, 2016)   Cited 10 times
    Rejecting notion that plaintiff's plans to return to the defendant's facility were critical to standing, although finding them critical to whether the plaintiff might obtain injunctive relief

    But it is not legally impossible, and that is what matters. See, e.g., Mueller v. Radioshack Corp., No. 11-CV-0653 (PJS/JJG), 2011 WL 6826421, at *2 (D. Minn. Dec. 28, 2011) (collecting cases between 2008 and 2010 resolved at or before summary judgment in which attorney's fees ranged from $36,795.79 to $100,000).

  9. Stanley v. LaFayette Life Ins. Co.

    Case No. 3:13-cv-05137-MDH (W.D. Mo. May. 4, 2015)   Cited 3 times

    While the Eighth Circuit has not yet addressed the issue, the majority of district courts within this circuit have held that attorney fees incurred post-removal are includable in the amount in controversy calculation so long as they are reasonable.Houston, Dickerson & Dickerson, Inc. v. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 13-2125, 2013 WL 3381078, at *2 (W.D. Ark. July 8, 2013) ("Taking into consideration fees for services already rendered together with a reasonable estimate of fees for services to be performed throughout the remainder of the legal proceedings, it is reasonable to conclude the amount in controversy will exceed $75,000.00."); Mueller v. RadioShack Corp., No. 11-CV-0653 PJS/JJG, 2011 WL 6826421, at *2 (D. Minn. Dec. 28, 2011) ("The Court will therefore take into account Mueller's likely future attorney's fees for purposes of determining the amount in controversy."); Feller v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 817 F. Supp. 2d 1097, 1104 (S.D. Iowa 2010) ("After reviewing the various conclusions of other courts, this Court finds that it is rational to include the future legal expenses in calculating the amount in controversy.

  10. Ernst v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co.

    Civil No. 13-570 ADM/AJB (D. Minn. Jul. 10, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    Attorney's fees may also count toward the jurisdictional minimum, but only when those fees are authorized by statute, contract, or as some other matter of right. See Rasmussen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 410 F.3d 1029, 1030 (8th Cir. 2005); see also Mueller v. RadioShack Corp., No. 11-cv-0653, 2011 WL 6826421, at *1-2 & n.4 (D. Minn. Dec. 28, 2011). Ernst has not demonstrated how the damages alleged in the Complaint might actually amount to $75,000 or more. Ernst's claim for $50,000 in actual damages is unfounded. Ernst seeks $4,000 in lost wages from Geico due to his November 2011 accident.