Mueller v. Radioshack Corp.

2 Citing cases

  1. 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

  2. Gage E. Servs., LLC v. AngelVision Techs., Inc.

    CIV. 12-4115-KES (D.S.D. Jan. 24, 2013)

    This is the type of jurisdictional fact, however, that would provide the basis for original jurisdiction under complete preemption and can be considered now even though it was not included in the state court complaint. See M. Nahas & Co., 930 F.2d at 612 (stating that in cases where complete preemption is at play "there is an exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule: 'a plaintiff cannot thwart the removal of a case by inadvertently, mistakenly or fraudulently concealing the federal question that would necessarily have appeared if the complaint had been well pleaded.' "); see also Mueller v. RadioShack Corp., Civ. No. 11-0653, 2011 WL 6826421, at *1 n.2 (D. Minn. Dec. 28, 2011) ("As always, in determining whether jurisdiction exists, a court is not limited to the allegations in the complaint, but must instead assess jurisdiction on the basis of all the facts known to it.") (citing James Neff Kramper Family Farm P'ship v. IBP, Inc., 393 F.3d 828, 833-34 (8th Cir. 2005)). Thus, unlike the majority of individuals who would not have standing and could not sue under CAN-SPAM, Gage Services as an alleged Internet access services provider would have a private right of action under the federal act.