255 F. Supp. 3d 753
N.D. Ill.2017Background
- Derek Boogaard, an NHL enforcer, suffered repeated head trauma and opioid treatment during his NHL career and died of an accidental opioid overdose in Minnesota in May 2011. Plaintiffs are his personal representatives, Len and Joanne Boogaard.
- Original state-law tort claims were removed to federal court by the NHL as completely preempted by § 301 of the LMRA; the court previously found many claims preempted and time-barred, leaving portions of Counts I–IV as non-preempted state-law claims.
- The surviving claims (Counts I–IV) assert: (a) survival and wrongful-death negligence claims based on the NHL’s alleged promotion of violence, and (b) survival and wrongful-death negligent-misrepresentation claims based on the NHL’s alleged misleading silence/public statements about head-trauma risks.
- The NHL moved to dismiss the surviving state-law claims; plaintiffs moved to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The NHL argued Minnesota law governs and, in any event, plaintiffs failed to state viable claims.
- The court held Minnesota law applies (most significant contacts: place of injury, place of conduct, parties’ relations) and dismissed all remaining claims with prejudice because (1) Minnesota’s wrongful-death/survival statute requires a court-appointed trustee (plaintiffs are personal representatives, not trustees) and no trustee was appointed within the statutory period, and (2) plaintiffs forfeited opposing the NHL’s substantive Rule 12(b)(6) arguments (failure to address duty, causation, reliance, etc.).
- The court declined to remand, retaining supplemental jurisdiction because the state-law claims were clearly resolvable on established grounds (statutory trustee requirement and plaintiffs’ forfeiture), and dismissal was with prejudice after multiple prior opportunities to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which state law governs the surviving state claims? | Complaint pleaded Minnesota and Illinois; in briefing plaintiffs argued New York might apply. | Minnesota law governs because the injury and most conduct occurred in Minnesota; strongest contacts favor Minnesota. | Minnesota law governs. |
| Who may bring wrongful-death/survival claims under Minnesota law? | Personal representatives (Len and Joanne) may pursue these claims; Rule 17(b) capacity analysis applies. | Minn. Stat. § 573.02 requires a court-appointed trustee; personal representatives are not trustees and plaintiffs never had a trustee appointed within the statutory period. | Claims under Minn. Stat. § 573.02 require a court-appointed trustee; plaintiffs as personal representatives lack a viable § 573.02 claim. |
| Do the pleadings state negligence/negligent-misrepresentation claims? | NHL’s conduct promoted violence and misled players about head-trauma risks, causing injury and death. | Complaint fails to plead legal duty, proximate causation, or reasonable reliance under applicable law. | Court dismissed for failure to respond to substantive Rule 12(b)(6) arguments (forfeiture); claims insufficient as pleaded. |
| Should the federal court remand remaining state-law claims to state court? | Plaintiffs requested remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) and (c)(3). | NHL argued court should retain jurisdiction because dismissal is clear, statute-of-limitations problems exist, and judicial economy favors retention. | Court retained supplemental jurisdiction and denied remand because disposition of state claims was clear and suited for federal resolution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (complete preemption under federal labor law) (explains when state law claim is recharacterized as federal for removal)
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (choice-of-law in federal court uses forum state's rules)
- Abad v. Bayer Corp., 563 F.3d 663 (7th Cir.) (place of injury is presumptive governing law under most-significant-relationship test)
- Hansen v. Bd. of Trs. of Hamilton Se. Sch. Corp., 551 F.3d 599 (7th Cir.) (factors for retaining supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: plausibility required to survive dismissal)
- Ortiz v. Gavenda, 590 N.W.2d 119 (Minn.) (Minn. Stat. § 573.02 requires a court-appointed trustee for wrongful-death actions)
- Regie de l'assurance Auto. du Quebec v. Jensen, 399 N.W.2d 85 (Minn.) (a § 573.02 suit without appointment of a trustee is a legal nullity)
- Williams v. Rodriguez, 509 F.3d 392 (7th Cir.) (general presumption to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of federal claims and exceptions where state claims are clearly resolvable)
- Wright v. Associated Ins. Cos., 29 F.3d 1244 (7th Cir.) (retention of state-law claims appropriate when correct disposition is clear and does not require complex state-law analysis)