Where a defendant seeks to remove a case based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. "All doubts about federal jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand to state court." Id. The defendant bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. After removal, a plaintiff may move to remand the case to state court, and the case should be remanded if it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. § 1332 requires an amount in controversy greater than $75,000 and complete diversity of citizenship among the litigants. Tokio Marine, 824 F.3d at 873.ĭiversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. The one year limitation set forth in § 1446(c)(1) only applies to bar removal when the case was not originally removable. The thirty-day period also applies when the defendant is a later-served defendant and did not receive service until the time limit during which the first-served defendant could have removed the case has expired. The notice of removal of a civil action shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based. On November 24, 2014, Scudder removed the case to federal court. The Circuit Court of Cedar County granted the motion and Plaintiff filed its second amended petition on Novemadding Dana Scudder as a defendant. On August 28, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend its petition to add a party, Dana Scudder. Plaintiff's original Petition requested pre and post judgment interest, costs and expenses. Finally, Plaintiff sought damages for interference with a lawful business and conversion. Plaintiff's fraudulent misrepresentation claim also sought punitive damages. It also sought specific performance of the contract ordering Pengo to perform its obligations under the Commitment Form and Confidentiality Agreement and damages for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation. In addition, Harleman alleged damages for breach of the Confidentiality Agreement, arguing it no longer exclusively possessed its own valuable, confidential information. Harleman's initial Petition specifically alleged damages for breach of contract in the amount of $43,584.38. During this time Harleman informed Pengo it was suffering on-going damage due to Pengo's failure to meet contractual deadlines. After the agreements were signed, disputes arose over several issues, including the timing of the production, the specifications, 3D files and other files, and the samples that were produced. Pursuant to the commitment form, Harleman paid Pengo $43,584.38. Pengo agreed to produce Harleman's augers and then manufacture casted rock heads for Harleman. On May 4, 2010, the parties also entered into a commitment form. The Confidentiality Agreement states, in part, that "if either party breached the Confidentiality Agreement, the non-breaching party would suffer irreparable harm, and that monetary damages would not adequately compensate the non-breaching party." It further allowed for monetary damages, including attorney fees, for any breach of the agreement. As part of the agreement, the parties entered into a Confidentiality Agreement that would keep confidential any confidential information the parties received from each other during the course of their business agreement. The terms of the agreement were negotiated between Dana Scudder, the Vice President, Sales and Marketing, at Pengo and Ron Harleman, the owner of Harleman. Plaintiff alleges Harleman entered into an agreement with Pengo in which Harleman would buy boring heads from Pengo and Pengo would buy augers from Harleman. Plaintiff's original Petition alleged Breach of Contract (Count I) Specific Performance of the Contract (Count II) Negligent Misrepresentation (Count III) Fraudulent Misrepresentation (Count IV) Interference with a Lawful Business (Count V) Conversion (Count VI) and an Accounting (Count VII) against Pengo. Plaintiff Harleman Manufacturing, LLC., a Missouri limited liability company, filed its Petition against Pengo Corporation, a Delaware corporation in the Circuit Court of Cedar County, Missouri on November 13, 2012. The parties have fully briefed this issue and the motion is now ripe for review. Douglas Harpool United States District Judgeīefore the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |