2016 WL 1651801
D. Minn.2016Background
- Medtronic sued Ernst and Nevro in state court, seeking declaratory, injunctive, and damages, then removed to federal court.
- Ernst signed a Minnesota forum-selection clause restricting disputes to Minnesota state court for the employment agreement.
- Ernst resigned to work for Nevro in Australia; her role at Nevro centers on Australian physician relationships, not the US market.
- Forensic review showed Ernst copied Medtronic files before leaving; none were accessed after departure and all were returned or retrievable.
- Nevro and Ernst have separate counsel; Medtronic seeks remand and a TRO, arguing Nevro is bound by the clause as a closely-related party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nevro is bound by the forum clause as a closely-related party | Nevro closely related; shares interest in Ernst’s employment and forum clause. | Nevro was not a party to the agreement and did not voluntarily join litigation; no close relationship. | Not bound; closely-related party doctrine does not apply here. |
| Whether removal was proper given the forum-clause and party status | Removal improper if clause binds Nevro; must consider closely-related-party binding. | Nevro not bound; removal permissible as not a contracting party. | Removal proper; remand denied. |
| Whether Medtronic demonstrates irreparable harm justifying a TRO | Possible misuse of confidential information and loss of customer goodwill constitute irreparable harm. | No demonstrated, imminent irreparable harm; information largely returned and unused. | No irreparable harm; TRO denied. |
| Whether expedited discovery is warranted | Expedited discovery needed to preserve evidence and assess harm. | Lack of irreparable harm weighs against expedited discovery. | Denied; refer to magistrate for standard discovery schedule. |
| Whether service timing affects removal consent requirements | All properly joined and served defendants must join removal. | Consent not required from defendants served after removal. | Consent not required from later-served defendants; service timing does not defeat removal. |
Key Cases Cited
- iNet Directories, LLC v. Developershed, Inc., 394 F.3d 1081 (8th Cir. 2005) (non-contracting party may be bound by forum-selection clause)
- Marano Enters. of Kan. v. Z-Teca Rests., L.P., 254 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 2001) (closely-related party doctrine: common interests justify binding)
- Endologix, Inc. v. Biosense Webster, Inc., 530 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (D. Minn. 2009) (closely-related party doctrine based on shared interests and counsel)