Modrow v. Destination Pet, LLC
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:25-cv-00500
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Modrow v. Destination Pet, LLC, Judge Menendez remanded the case to Minnesota state court because complete diversity was not sufficiently shown.
Liah Modrow and Destination Pet, LLC are affected because the case was returned from federal court to the Minnesota state court in Hennepin County.
What happened
In Modrow v. Destination Pet, LLC, Destination Pet, LLC had removed the case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship. A magistrate judge found that Destination Pet had not sufficiently shown complete diversity, which is required for this basis of federal jurisdiction.
The parties could object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation by May 13, 2025, but no objections were filed. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Judge Katherine Menendez ordered that the case be remanded to the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District of Minnesota in Hennepin County.
The detailed version
- Modrow v. Destination Pet, LLC · No. 0:25-cv-00500
- Katherine Menendez
- May 22, 2025
Background
Destination Pet, LLC, doing business as Hound Dog Hotel, removed the case to federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the diversity-jurisdiction statute. The April 29, 2025 Report and Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty concluded that Destination Pet had not sufficiently shown complete diversity of citizenship to support removal. The recommendation was that the case be sent back to state court.
Review of the Recommendation
The deadline for objections was May 13, 2025, and no party filed objections. Without objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the recommendation or the record. The court reviewed the recommendation and the record and found no error.
Disposition
The court ordered that the matter be remanded to the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District for the State of Minnesota, Hennepin County. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in the state-court case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.