Krebsbach v. Rewerts

Background

James Krebsbach, Isable Martinez, and Jennie Strobel filed Minnesota-law claims in Minnesota state court against Kwik Trip, Inc., Shawna Heavirland, and Jason Rewerts. Their claims included employment discrimination claims against Kwik Trip and Heavirland and a civil battery claim against Rewerts. Kwik Trip removed the case to federal court under diversity jurisdiction.

Diversity jurisdiction generally requires complete diversity: no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant. The opinion states that Krebsbach and Martinez are Minnesota citizens, Strobel is a California citizen, Heavirland and Rewerts are Minnesota citizens, and Kwik Trip is a Wisconsin citizen. Because Minnesota citizens appeared on both sides, complete diversity was lacking unless an exception applied.

Arguments About Jurisdiction and Joinder

The plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court. The defendants argued that Martinez’s individual reprisal claim against Heavirland and Strobel’s civil battery claim against Rewerts had been fraudulently joined—that is, included only to prevent removal to federal court. The defendants also argued that the plaintiffs’ claims were fraudulently misjoined because the claims were not sufficiently related and should be divided into separate lawsuits.

The court concluded that the defendants had not shown that Strobel’s civil battery claim against Rewerts lacked a reasonable basis in fact or law. The allegations described intentional, unwelcome, and offensive physical contact. The court also stated that the defendants’ arguments about Kwik Trip’s potential responsibility for the battery did not establish that Rewerts himself had been fraudulently joined. The court declined to decide whether the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act preempted Strobel’s related claim against Kwik Trip because that issue depended on factual questions requiring a more developed record.

The court also found that the claims were sufficiently related for joinder under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. All three plaintiffs worked at the same store, reported to the same supervisors, and alleged that Kwik Trip failed to meaningfully respond to Rewerts’s inappropriate conduct. Krebsbach and Martinez alleged retaliation or reprisal after reporting that conduct, while Strobel alleged that she was forced to resign after Kwik Trip failed to stop it. The court acknowledged that Martinez’s pregnancy-related claims did not originate from Rewerts’s alleged harassment but concluded that keeping those claims in the same case promoted convenience and avoided multiple lawsuits.

Ruling

The court found that neither fraudulent joinder nor fraudulent misjoinder had been shown. Because Rewerts remained in the case and the claims could proceed together, complete diversity was absent. The court therefore did not decide whether Martinez had a viable individual reprisal claim against Heavirland, stating that the state courts should address the unresolved state-law issue.

The order:

- Granted the plaintiffs’ motion to remand. - Denied as moot Shawna Heavirland’s motion to dismiss. - Denied the defendants’ request for severance. - Remanded the matter to Minnesota District Court, County of Stearns, Seventh Judicial District.

The court’s ruling concerned federal jurisdiction and the organization of the case; it did not resolve the merits of the underlying employment discrimination or civil battery claims.