throbber
Case: 3:20-cv-00273-DRC Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/01/20 Page: 1 of 11 PAGEID #: 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`VILLAGE OF CAMDEN, OHIO,
`
`56 West Central Avenue
`
`
`Camden, Ohio 45311
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CARGILL, INCORPORATED,
`
`c/o CT Corporation System
`
`
`4400 Easton Commons Way
`
`Suite 125
`
`
`
`
`Columbus, Ohio 43219,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CENTRAL SALT L.L.C.
`
`
`c/o CT Corporation System
`
`
`4400 Easton Commons Way
`
`Suite 125
`
`
`
`
`Columbus, Ohio 43219,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`R. GOOD RENTALS, LLC
`
`c/o Tami Good
`
`
`
`7076 North Main Street
`
`
`Camden, Ohio 45311,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOD RAIL & TRUCK
`
`
`TRANSFER, INC.
`
`
`c/o Corporate Statutory Services, Inc.
`255 E. Fifth Street, Suite 2400
`
`Cincinnati, Ohio 45202,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`R. GOOD ENTERPRISES, LLC
`
`c/o Chester M. Rhoades
`
`
`1800 Whipp Road
`
`
`
`Dayton, Ohio 45440,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`District Judge ________________________
`
`Magistrate Judge _____________________
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`

`

`Case: 3:20-cv-00273-DRC Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/01/20 Page: 2 of 11 PAGEID #: 2
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION BY DEFENDANTS
`CARGILL, INCORPORATED AND CENTRAL SALT L.L.C.
`
`Defendants, Cargill, Incorporated (hereinafter “Cargill”) and Central Salt L.L.C.
`
`
`
`(hereinafter “Central Salt”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446, file their Notice of
`
`Removal of Preble County Case No. 20CV032007 from the Court of Common Pleas for Preble
`
`County, Ohio to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The
`
`Complaint in the Preble County case is attached as Exhibit A. The grounds for removal are as
`
`follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Village of Camden, Ohio (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed an action against
`
`Cargill and Central Salt in the Court of Common Pleas for Preble County, Ohio on May 1, 2020.
`
`See Exhibit B. That complaint alleged salt contamination of Plaintiff’s former municipal wellfield
`
`and asserted claims of public nuisance and trespass.
`
`2.
`
`After receiving notice that Cargill and Central Salt were planning to remove its first
`
`Complaint to this federal Court, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action on June 1, 2020. See
`
`Exhibit C.
`
`3.
`
`On the next business day, in an effort to destroy diversity and thwart removal,
`
`Plaintiff filed a virtually identical complaint in the Court of Common Pleas for Preble County,
`
`Ohio but this time added R. Good Rentals, LLC (“Good Rentals”), Good Rail & Truck Transfer,
`
`Inc. (“Good Rail”), and R. Good Enterprises, LLC (“Good Enterprises”) (collectively the “Good
`
`Entities”). See Exhibit A (the “Complaint”).
`
`4.
`
`However, Plaintiff’s attempt was futile because complete diversity still exists. And,
`
`even if diversity did not exist, the fraudulent joinder of resident defendants will not prevent the
`
`Court’s exercise of diversity jurisdiction.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 3:20-cv-00273-DRC Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/01/20 Page: 3 of 11 PAGEID #: 3
`
`DIVERSITY JURISDICTION IS PROPER
`
`5.
`
`The Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this civil action because
`
`there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties, the amount in controversy exceeds
`
`$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and removal is otherwise proper.
`
`COMPLETE DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP EXISTS
`
`6.
`
`The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case because complete diversity
`
`exists between the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff is a political subdivision in the State of Ohio. Complaint at ¶ 1.
`
`For the purpose of diversity, a political subdivision is a citizen of the state in which
`
`it is located. See State of Ohio v. Ultracell Corp., No. 2:16-cv-187, 2017 WL 430731, at *2 (S.D.
`
`Ohio 2017). Therefore, Plaintiff is a citizen of Ohio.
`
`9.
`
`Cargill is a privately-held corporation organized in the State of Delaware and
`
`headquartered in the State of Minnesota.
`
`10.
`
`For the purpose of diversity, a corporation is deemed to be a citizen of both its state
`
`of incorporation and the state where its principal place of business is located. 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1332(c)(1). Therefore, Cargill is a citizen of the States of Delaware and Minnesota.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`Central Salt is a single-member limited liability company.
`
`For the purpose of diversity, a limited liability company has the citizenship of its
`
`members. Engle v. UHaul, 208 F. Supp.3d 844, 849 (S.D. Ohio 2016).
`
`13.
`
`B.S.C. Holding, Inc. is the only member of Central Salt, and B.S.C. Holding, Inc.
`
`is incorporated and headquartered in the State of Kansas. Therefore, Central Salt is a citizen of the
`
`State of Kansas.
`
`14.
`
`Good Rentals is a single-member limited liability company.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 3:20-cv-00273-DRC Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/01/20 Page: 4 of 11 PAGEID #: 4
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`Tami Good is the only member of Good Rentals.
`
`For the purpose of diversity, an individual’s citizenship is determined by her
`
`domicile at the time the plaintiff files the complaint. Winningham v. North American Resources,
`
`Corp., 809 F. Supp. 546, 551 (S.D. Ohio 1992).
`
`17.
`
`To be domiciled in a state, an individual must be physically present there and must
`
`have either the intention to make her home there indefinitely or an absence of intention to make
`
`her home elsewhere. Id.
`
`18.
`
`Courts may consider a variety of factors when evaluating an individual’s domicile,
`
`including: current residence, voter registration and voting practices, location of real and personal
`
`property, location of bank accounts, memberships in community organizations, places of
`
`employment or business, driver’s license and automobile registration, and payment of taxes. Ewert
`
`v. Holzer Clinic, Inc., No. 2:09-CV-0131, 2010 WL 3063226, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 3, 2010).
`
`19.
`
`Tami Good owns a condominium and resides at 502 Riverfront Way, Knoxville,
`
`TN 37915. See Exhibit D. Tami Good is also a registered voter in the State of Tennessee. See
`
`Exhibit E. Therefore, Tami Good is a citizen of the State of Tennessee.
`
`20.
`
`Since Tami Good is the only member of Good Rentals, Good Rentals is a citizen
`
`of the State of Tennessee.
`
`21.
`
`Good Enterprises was a single-member limited liability company. It was dissolved
`
`in 2013. See Exhibit F.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`Rodney Good is the only member of Good Enterprises.
`
`Rodney Good resides with Tami Good at 502 Riverfront Way, Knoxville, TN
`
`37915. Rodney Good is also a registered voter in the State of Tennessee. See Exhibit G. Therefore,
`
`Rodney Good is a citizen of the State of Tennessee.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 3:20-cv-00273-DRC Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/01/20 Page: 5 of 11 PAGEID #: 5
`
`24.
`
`Per R.C. 1705.45, a dissolved limited liability company continues its existence until
`
`the winding up of its affairs is complete, and it may sue and be sued during this winding up period.
`
`See In re Soderberg and Schafer CPAS, LLC, 441 B.R. 262, 266 (N.D. Ohio 2010) (allowing an
`
`involuntary case to be commenced against a dissolved but not wound up limited liability company
`
`as a Chapter 7 debtor); ACV Realty v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 2016-Ohio-5467, ¶50 (7th
`
`Dist.) (holding that a dissolved limited liability company lacked standing to bring claims unrelated
`
`to winding up its affairs more than five years after its dissolution).
`
`25.
`
`Thus, Plaintiff’s claims against Good Enterprises, which have nothing to do with
`
`the winding up of the entity and which were brought seven years after the entity ceased operations,
`
`are improper and should be ignored for diversity purposes.
`
`26.
`
`Nonetheless, if the Court deems the citizenship of Good Enterprises to be relevant,
`
`the entity’s citizenship will be determined by its only member, Rodney Good; therefore, Good
`
`Enterprises is a citizen of the State of Tennessee.
`
`27.
`
`Good Rail was a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Ohio. At one
`
`time, its principal place of business may have been located in the State of Ohio. However, it was
`
`dissolved in 2013. See Exhibit H.
`
`28.
`
`Per R.C. 1701.88, a new lawsuit may only be filed against a dissolved corporation
`
`for five years after its dissolution. Ohio ex rel. DeWine v. Breen, 362 F. Supp.3d 420, 441 (S.D.
`
`Ohio 2019) (holding that R.C. 1701.88(B) “limits the period a dissolved Ohio corporation can be
`
`liable for any existing claim or right against it to five years after the corporation’s dissolution,” so
`
`any claims existing prior to dissolution could no longer be filed after expiration of the five-year
`
`period); Garrett Day, LLC v. Int'l Paper Co., No. 3:15-CV-36, 2019 WL 1331680, at *7 (S.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 3:20-cv-00273-DRC Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/01/20 Page: 6 of 11 PAGEID #: 6
`
`Ohio Mar. 25, 2019 (suit must be brought against a dissolved corporation within five years after
`
`dissolution).
`
`29.
`
`Thus, Plaintiff’s claims against Good Rail, which have nothing to do with winding
`
`up the dissolved corporation and which were brought more than seven years after the entity’s
`
`dissolution, are improper and should be ignored for diversity purposes. Compare Tax Increment
`
`Finance Authority v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 771 F. Supp.2d 791, 795 (E.D. Mich. 2011) (holding
`
`that claims against a dissolved corporation defeated diversity because the corporation was not yet
`
`wound up and the reasonable time period for winding up under Michigan law had not yet lapsed);
`
`with Okamoto v. Mizuho Holding Co., No. 06-C-459, 2006 WL 8447929, at *2 (N.D. Ill. July 28,
`
`2006) (holding that claims against a dissolved corporation did not defeat diversity when the
`
`corporation was wound up and the suit was brought more than a year after the expiration of
`
`Delaware’s winding up time period).
`
`30.
`
`Accordingly, there is complete diversity of citizenship within the meaning of 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1332(c), and 1441, et seq., between Plaintiff, Cargill, Central Salt, and the
`
`Good Entities for the purpose of diversity jurisdiction.
`
`THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS $75,000
`
`31.
`
`The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case because the amount in
`
`controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of costs and interest, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
`
`32.
`
`Because Rule 8(A) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure restricts Plaintiff’s
`
`Complaint from pleading a damages figure above $25,000, and because Plaintiff’s Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 3:20-cv-00273-DRC Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/01/20 Page: 7 of 11 PAGEID #: 7
`
`seeks nonmonetary injunctive relief, this Notice of Removal may assert the amount in controversy.
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(A).
`
`33.
`
`In this case, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Plaintiff alleges that it
`
`incurred damages in excess of $3.6 million for a new public water system. Complaint at ¶ 38.
`
`Furthermore, this sum does not encompass the expense of soil and groundwater remediation sought
`
`by Plaintiff at its former wellfield, nor does the amount encompass operating expenses at the new
`
`public water system, both of which are damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Complaint at Prayer for
`
`Relief at ¶ 4.
`
`34.
`
`According to the United States Supreme Court, a Notice of Removal “need include
`
`only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.”
`
`Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). Removal is proper
`
`when the Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy is
`
`satisfied. Id. at 88.
`
`35.
`
`As Plaintiff itself alleged millions of dollars in expenses incurred as a result of the
`
`alleged salt contamination, the $75,000 amount in controversy threshold is met.
`
`REMOVAL IS OTHERWISE PROPER
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff filed the Complaint on June 3, 2020. Cargill and Central Salt were served
`
`with summons via United States certified mail on June 8, 2020.
`
`37.
`
`This Notice of Removal is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) in that it is made within
`
`thirty days of receipt of the Complaint.
`
`38.
`
`This Notice of Removal complies with the unanimity requirement of 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1446(a) in that Cargill and Central Salt jointly seek the removal of this case and the Good Entities
`
`consent to the removal. See Exhibit I.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 3:20-cv-00273-DRC Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/01/20 Page: 8 of 11 PAGEID #: 8
`
`39.
`
`Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2) and 1446(a) because this
`
`Court is the United States District Court for the district and division within which the State Court
`
`action is pending and all the alleged events and omissions giving rise to the claims took place. In
`
`that regard, Plaintiff’s former wellfield, the salt storage facility alleged to have contaminated that
`
`wellfield, and Plaintiff’s new public water system are all located in Preble County, Ohio.
`
`40.
`
`Cargill and Central Salt will give prompt written notice of the filing of this Notice
`
`of Removal to Plaintiff.
`
`41.
`
`Cargill and Central Salt will file a copy of this Notice of Removal with the Clerk
`
`of the Court of Common Pleas of Preble County.
`
`42.
`
`By filing this Notice of Removal, Cargill and Central Salt do not waive any
`
`defenses.
`
`THE JOINDER OF THE GOOD ENTITIES WAS FRAUDULENT
`
`43.
`
`Even in the absence of complete diversity, a federal District Court may exercise
`
`subject matter jurisdiction if the resident defendants were fraudulently joined.
`
`44.
`
`The general purpose of diversity jurisdiction is to protect out-of-state defendants
`
`from local prejudice when sued in a local court. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 85 (2010).
`
`45.
`
`To this end, out-of-state defendants have a right to remove their case to federal
`
`court when 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is satisfied.
`
`46.
`
`“[C]ourts should be vigilant to protect the rights of litigants to proceed in the
`
`federal court[.]” Brady v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America, 68 F.2d 302, 303 (6th Cir.
`
`1933).
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 3:20-cv-00273-DRC Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/01/20 Page: 9 of 11 PAGEID #: 9
`
`47.
`
`And, the “right of removal cannot be defeated by a fraudulent joinder of a resident
`
`defendant having no real connection with the controversy.” Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co.,
`
`257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921).
`
`48.
`
`In fraudulent joinder cases, there are two underlying reasons for removal: 1) when
`
`there is no factual basis on which to claim the resident defendant is jointly liable or 2) when there
`
`is such liability, but there is no purpose to prosecute the action against the resident defendant in
`
`good faith. Brady, 68 F.2d at 303 (citing Wilson, 257 U.S. at 97).
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`Here, the second of these reasons applies.
`
`The sequence of events leading to this Removal demonstrate Plaintiff’s lack of
`
`intent to prosecute claims against the Good Entities: Plaintiff filed a complaint against Cargill
`
`and Central Salt, and then, after learning of their intended removal, Plaintiff voluntarily
`
`dismissed the action. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed an identical complaint but added the Good
`
`Entities as resident defendants to prevent removal.
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiff’s approach reveals its intent to pursue claims against Cargill and Central
`
`Salt and involve the Good Entities only to prevent the out-of-state Defendants from exercising
`
`their right to defend in a federal forum.
`
`52.
`
`Two of the three Good Entities – Good Enterprises and Good Rail – no longer
`
`existed when Plaintiff added them to the lawsuit. Both are dissolved entities well past their
`
`winding up period.
`
`53.
`
`The core purpose of diversity jurisdiction is to prevent prejudice to out-of-state
`
`parties, yet this case involves a dispute between out-of-state businesses and the ultimate insider:
`
`a municipality within the County where the state action is pending. Few factual scenarios are
`
`riper with potential prejudice to the out-of-state parties in this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 3:20-cv-00273-DRC Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/01/20 Page: 10 of 11 PAGEID #: 10
`
`54.
`
`Thus, the joinder of the Good Entities was fraudulent. Even if these companies
`
`are Ohio citizens, their joinder should be disregarded for diversity purposes and Plaintiff’s ploy
`
`does not defeat removal.
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendants Cargill and Central Salt remove this action to the United States
`
`District Court for the Southern District of Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 and 1446.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`VAN KLEY & WALKER, LLC
`
`
`
`/s/ Jack A. Van Kley
`Jack A. Van Kley (#0016961)
`Trial Attorney
`132 Northwoods Blvd., Suite C-1
`Columbus, Ohio 43235
`Tel: (614) 431-8900
`Fax: (614) 431-8905
`Email: jvankley@vankleywalker.com
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE
`& REATH LLP
`
`Jacob D. Bylund (pro hac vice pending)
`801 Grand Avenue, 33rd Floor
`Des Moines, IA 50309-8003
`Tel.: (Direct): (515) 447-4708
`Tel.: (Main): (515) 248-9000
`Fax: (515) 248-9010
`Email: jacob.bylund@FaegreDrinker.com
`
`Julian E. Harrell (pro hac vice pending)
`Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
`300 N. Meridian Street, Suite 2500
`Indianapolis, IN 46204
`Tel.: (Direct): (317) 237-1350
`Tel.: (Main): (317) 237-0300
`Fax: (317) 237-1000
`Email: julian.harrell@FaegreDrinker.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Cargill, Incorporated
`
` Dated: July 1, 2020
`
`
`
`
`ULMER & BERNE, LLP
`
`/s/ Frederic X. Shadley
`Frederic X. Shadley (0028584)
`Trial Attorney
`600 Vine Street, Suite 2800
`Cincinnati, OH 45202-2409
`Telephone: (513) 698-5000
`Facsimile: (513) 698-5015
`Email: fshadley@ulmer.com
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`LATHROP & GAGE, LLP
`
`Jennifer Hannah (pro hac vice pending)
`10851 Mastin, Building 82, Suite 1000
`Overland Park, KS 66210
`Tel.: (816) 292-2000
`Fax: (816) 292-2001
`jhannah@lathropgage.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Central Salt L.L.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 3:20-cv-00273-DRC Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/01/20 Page: 11 of 11 PAGEID #: 11
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on July 1, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of
`
`Removal was served upon the following via U.S. Mail:
`
`Stephen N. Haughey
`Danielle E. List
`Frost Brown Todd LLC
`301 E. Fourth Street, Suite 3200
`Cincinnati, OH 45202
`shaughey@fbtlaw.com
`dlist@fbtlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Village of Camden
`
`Donald J. Rafferty
`Cohen, Todd, Kite & Stanford, LLC
`250 E. Fifth Street, Suite 2350
`Cincinnati, OH 45202
`Telephone: (513) 333-5243
`Facsimile: (513) 241-4490
`Email: DRafferty@ctks.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Good Rail & Truck Transfer, Inc. and R. Good
`Enterprises, LLC
`
`Matthew A. Rich
`Katz Teller
`255 E. Fifth Street, 24th Floor
`Cincinnati, OH 45202
`Phone: (513) 721-4532
`Fax: (513) 762-0075
`Email: mrich@katzteller.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant R. Good Rentals, LLC
`
`/s/ Jack A. Van Kley
`Jack A. Van Kley
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket