Olderman v. John McDonald & Sons, Inc.
- Leo Brisbois
- 0:25-cv-01050
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Olderman v. John McDonald, Judge Brisbois recommended remanding the negligence case because removal did not establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
Jeanne Olderman, Dave Levy Construction, LLC, John McDonald & Sons, Inc., the three unidentified defendants, and the Minnesota state court where the action was originally filed.
What happened
Jeanne Olderman brought three state-law negligence claims in Minnesota state court against Dave Levy Construction, LLC, John McDonald & Sons, Inc., and three unidentified defendants. Dave Levy Construction removed the case to federal court, claiming the amount at issue exceeded $75,000 and the parties were citizens of different states.
The federal court reviewed whether it had authority to hear the case. It found that Dave Levy Construction had not identified its members or alleged their citizenship, so it had not shown the complete diversity required for federal jurisdiction. Dave Levy Construction later said it consented to sending the case back to state court.
Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended that the case be remanded to Minnesota state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The document is a report and recommendation, not a final order, and it says it is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit.
The detailed version
- Olderman v. John McDonald & Sons, Inc. · No. 0:25-cv-01050
- Leo Brisbois
- May 14, 2025
Background
Jeanne Olderman filed this action in the Minnesota State District Court for Beltrami County. The complaint names Dave Levy Construction, LLC; John McDonald & Sons, Inc.; and three defendants whose names were not known. It asserts three state-law negligence claims against all defendants.
Dave Levy Construction removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. It asserted diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, claiming that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 and that the parties were citizens of different states.
Jurisdictional issue
The federal court has limited subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear a case. The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists. For diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000 and no plaintiff may share a state of citizenship with any defendant.
Because Dave Levy Construction is a limited liability company, its citizenship is determined by the citizenship of each of its members. The court found that Dave Levy Construction had not alleged either the identities of its members or their citizenship. Therefore, it had not shown that complete diversity existed.
The court had previously ordered Dave Levy Construction to show why the case should not be remanded. The deadline passed without a showing-cause letter. Instead, Dave Levy Construction filed a letter stating that it consented to remand and had informed Olderman’s counsel.
Recommendation and effect
The magistrate judge recommended that the action be REMANDED to the Minnesota State District Court, Ninth Judicial District, County of Beltrami, Minnesota, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The recommendation resolves the federal court’s jurisdictional question; it does not decide the merits of Olderman’s negligence claims.
The document states that it is a report and recommendation rather than an order or judgment of the district court. It also states that it is not directly appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Under the cited local rule, a party may file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the recommendation.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.