Ferris & Salter, PC v. Thomson Reuters Corporation

Filing 1

NOTICE OF REMOVAL by THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION from Washtenaw, case number 11-478-NO. Receipt No: 0645-3012683 - Fee: $ 350 [Previously dismissed case: No] [Possible companion case(s): None] (Boonstra, Mark)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
FERRIS & SALTER, P.C.,
CASE NO.
Plaintiff,
v.

HON.

THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION,
d/b/a FINDLAW,
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Defendant.

Removal of attached case filed in Washtenaw
County Circuit Court, State of Michigan
Case No. 11-478 NO
Hon. Donald E. Shelton
_____________________________________________________________________________/
Don Ferris (P26436)
Ferris & Salter, P.C.
Attorney for Plaintiff
4158 Washtenaw Avenue
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108
[phone]

Mark T. Boonstra (P36046)
MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE,
P.L.C.
Attorneys for Defendant
101 N. Main Street, 7th Floor
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
[phone]
[e-mail]

_____________________________________________________________________________/
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
TO:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division
200 E. Liberty Street, Room 120
Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Don Ferris (P26436)
Ferris & Salter, P.C.
Attorney for Plaintiff
4158 Washtenaw Avenue
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108

Defendant Thomson Reuters Corporation, d/b/a FindLaw removes this action from the
Washtenaw County Circuit Court, State of Michigan, to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan. The legal and factual bases for this removal are as follows:

1.

“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the

United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant … to the district court
of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is
pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
2.

The Court has original jurisdiction over this controversy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1332 because:
a. The controversy is between citizens of different States and/or between citizens
of a State and citizens of a foreign state; and
b. The amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of
interest and costs.
The basis for original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is further explained below.
3.

Plaintiff is a Michigan professional corporation with its principal place of

business located at 4158 Washtenaw Avenue, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108. Plaintiff thus is a
citizen of the State of Michigan.
4.

Thomson Reuters Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under the

laws of Canada with its principal place of business located at 3 Times Square, New York, New
York 10036.
5.

FindLaw is the brand name for a website product offered by West Publishing

Corporation. Plaintiff incorrectly identifies FindLaw as part of the Thomson Reuters Business of
Law group, which is an unknown entity. West Publishing Corporation is indirectly owned by
Thomson Reuters Corporation.
6.

West Publishing Corporation transacts business as West, a Thomson Reuters

business. West Publishing Corporation is a Minnesota corporation with a principal place of
business located at 610 Opperman Drive, Eagan, Minnesota 55123.

2

7.

Plaintiff contracted with West Publishing Corporation in relation to the services

identified in Plaintiff’s Complaint as “FindLaw”.
8.

This case thus presents a controversy between citizens of different States and/or

between citizens of a State and citizens of a foreign state.
9.

The amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of

interest and costs. In addition to containing an ad damnum clause that (as is required in the
Michigan courts) merely seeks damages “over Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000),”
Plaintiff’s Complaint expressly alleges that “[a]s a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s
employees’ and agents’ negligence … Plaintiff … lost hundreds of thousands of dollars …”
(Complaint, ¶ 19) (emph. add.), and Plaintiff seeks to recover those alleged damages. By
Plaintiff’s own express description, therefore, the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000
jurisdictional threshold of this Court.
10.

This action is currently pending in the Washtenaw County Circuit Court, State of

Michigan, which court is located in a county within the United States judicial district for the
Eastern District of Michigan. Accordingly, this action is properly removed to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
11.

This Notice of Removal has been filed in a timely manner pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1446(b) because it is filed within thirty (30) days after Defendant first received, through
service or otherwise, a copy of the initial pleading setting forth Plaintiff’s purported claim for
relief. Defendant first received a copy of that pleading, at the earliest, when a copy of the
summons and complaint was delivered to it, by certified mail, on May 10, 2011.
12.

All process, pleadings, and orders that have been served upon Defendant are

attached as Exhibit A to this Notice as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a).

3

13.

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), Defendant has given Plaintiff written notice

of removal, and have filed a copy of this Notice with the Clerk of the Washtenaw County Circuit
Court, State of Michigan.
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this action proceed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
Respectfully submitted,
MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, P.L.C.
By:
s/Mark T. Boonstra
Mark T. Boonstra (P36046)
Attorneys for Defendant
101 N. Main Street, 7th Floor
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
[phone]
[e-mail]
Dated: June 6, 2011
19,124,516.1\088888-00312

4

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT A