Mueller v. Radioshack Corp.

4 Citing cases

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

    Case No. 20-cv-00762 (SRN/TNL) (D. Minn. Oct. 26, 2020)   Cited 6 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.").

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. Bohanna v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.

    848 F. Supp. 2d 1009 (W.D. Mo. 2012)   Cited 19 times
    Finding that the statutory requirement was satisfied despite a 67-day delay in filing a notice of removal in state court and that such delay did not warrant remand

    Therefore, the Court finds that James' absence exposes the defendants to a substantial risk of incurring inconsistent obligations and he is a necessary party under Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(ii). See Belcher ex rel. Belcher v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 158 F.Supp.2d 777, 779–80 (S.D.Ohio 2001) (noting that “[a]n absent claimant to a limited fund, such as the proceeds of an insurance policy, is ordinarily considered to be an indispensable party to litigation”); cf. Mueller v. RadioShack Corp., No. 11–653, 2011 WL 6826421, at *4 (D.Minn. Dec. 28, 2011) (finding that the defendant was not at a substantial risk for incurring inconsistent obligations because “[u]nder no circumstances will [the defendant] be ordered by one court to do something, and then be ordered by another court not to do the same thing”). Sears has requested that the Court either dismiss this action due to James' absence or stay the proceedings until James is joined.