Thomas M. Cooley Law School v. Kurzon Strauss, LLP et al

Filing 1

NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Ingham County Circuit Court case number 11-780-CZ filed by Jesse Strauss, Strauss Kurzon, David Anziska (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hyder, Steven) Modified text on 8/12/2011 (gjf).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

THOMAS M. COOLEY LAW SCHOOL,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.

KURZON STRAUSS LLP, DAVID
ANZISKA, and JESSE STRAUSS,

Defendants.

NOTICE OF REMOVAL
TO:

The Honorable Joyce Draganchuk
Ingham County Circuit Court
313 West Kalamazoo St.
Lansing, MI 48933

Michael Coakley
Paul Hudson
MILLER, CANFIELD PADDOCK
AND STONE, PLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
150 West Jefferson, Suite 2500
Detroit, MI 48226
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendants Kurzon Strauss LLP (“Kurzon
Strauss”), David Anziska and Jesse Strauss (collectively, “Defendants”), preserving all
jurisdictional objections and other defenses, now removes this action from the Circuit
Court for the County of Ingham to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S §1332(a).

In support of their Notice of Removal, Defendants state:
1.

On July 14, 2011, Plaintiff Thomas M. Cooley Law School (“Plaintiff” or

“Thomas Cooley”), a Michigan nonprofit corporation, commenced this action in Ingham
County Circuit Court by filing a complaint titled Thomas M. Cooley Law School v.
Kurzon Strauss LLP, docketed as case number 11780-CZ (the “Complaint”). Plaintiff
served Kurzon Strauss, a New York-based limited liability partnership, with the
Complaint, but not the Summons, on July 14, 2011. It further served defendants Anziska
and Strauss, both of whom are New York citizens and residents, with both the Summons
and the Complaint on August 4, 2011. A true and accurate copy of the Summons and
Complaint is attached as Exhibit A.
2.

The Complaint asserts four separate claims against Defendants, including

Defamation, Tortious Interference with Business Relations, Breach of Contract and False
Light. For each claim Plaintiff seeks, among other relief, “damages in excess of $25,000,
plus interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.” Plaintiff further seeks substantial injunctive relief,
including barring Defendants from “publishing the defamatory statements concerning
Cooley,” which would essentially enjoin Defendants from communicating with
prospective clients with legal disputes where Thomas Cooley is the adverse party because
the statements that Cooley appears to allege were defamatory were made to communicate
with such potential clients.1 Thus, at the very least, Plaintiff seeks an aggregate,

1

On August 10, 2011, four graduates of Thomas Cooley filed a class action Complaint
against Thomas Cooley, titled MacDonald v. Thomas M. Cooley Law School, Case No.
11-cv-00831 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 10, 2011), for misrepresenting its post-graduate
placement rates and salary information, asserting three claims against the school. These
four plaintiffs are represented in part by the Defendants and the alleged defamatory
statements were made in communications with potential clients for that action.
2

cumulative total of monetary damages in excess of $100,000, excluding its request for
attorneys’ fees.
3.

Removal is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a) based on diversity of

jurisdiction because: (1) there is a complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and
Defendants, and (2) the actual amount of controversy exceeds $75,000.
4.

Specifically, upon information and belief and as alleged in the Complaint,

Plaintiff is a Michigan nonprofit corporation with its principal place of business in
Michigan. See Ex. A at ¶2. Kurzon Strauss is a New York-based limited liability
partnership with its principal place of business in New York, and Messrs. Anziska and
Strauss are both citizens and residents of New York. Ex. A at ¶3.
5.

The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 since Plaintiff seeks: (1) an

aggregate, cumulative total of monetary damages in excess of $100,000 (2) the
reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs; and (3) to de facto enjoin Defendants from
communicating with prospective clients with legal disputes with Thomas Cooley.
6.

As to Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs, Courts have

consistently included attorneys’ fees and costs for the purposes of determining the
amount in controversy requirement for diversity cases. See in general, Shannon v. J.P.
Morgan Chase & Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17455, at *5; No. 10-cv-14695 (E.D. Mich.
Feb. 23, 2011) (denying plaintiff’s motion to remand; noting that “Plaintiffs' complaint
states that they seek damages against Defendant ‘in whatever amount above $25,000 they
are found to be entitled, together with statutory damages, treble damages, interest, costs
and reasonable attorney fees as provided by statute.’) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs'
attempt to reformulate their damages in the instant motion and brief is unpersuasive.”);

3

Tech. Sales Assocs., Inc. v. Ohio Star Forge Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87386, at *11;
No. 08-cv-13365 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 29, 2008) (denying plaintiff’s remand motion because
the amount in controversy exceeded $ 75,000 when considering the undisclosed amount
of attorney fees requested). This is especially true, where, as here, Plaintiff is being
represented by one of the largest and most expensive law firms in Michigan whose billing
rates for senior partners like Plaintiff’s counsel Michael Coakley can exceed hundreds of
dollars per hour, and for only a few months of work can easily total in the tens of
thousands of dollars.
7.

Similarly, Plaintiff, by seeking an order mandating that Defendants are

enjoined from publishing allegedly defamatory statements contained in a draft class
action complaint, essentially attempt to prevent Defendants from communicating with
prospective clients with legal disputes with Thomas Cooley because Thomas Cooley
appears to believe that communications between a lawyer and a party prior to the filing of
a lawsuit are not subject to a privilege. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request constitutes
substantial injunctive relief and must be included in calculating the amount in
controversy threshold. See in general, Bobel v. Met Life Home Loans, Inc., 2011 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 51388, at *5-6; No. 11-cv-10574 (E.D. Mich. May 13, 2011) (denying
remand motion because, despite not seeking monetary damages, plaintiff sought
injunctive relief that exceeded $75,000; “where a plaintiff seeks injunctive or declaratory
relief, ‘it is well-settled that the amount in controversy is to be measured for subject
matter jurisdiction purposes by the value of the right that the plaintiff seeks to enforce or
to protect against the defendant's conduct or the value of the object that is the subject
matter of the action.’” [quotation omitted]); Flores v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 2008 U.S. Dist

4

LEXIS 3524, at *9-10; No. 07-cv-13878 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 17, 2008) (same; “As the Sixth
Circuit has held, ‘[w]here a party seeks a declaratory judgment, 'the amount in
controversy is not necessarily the money judgment sought or recovered, but rather the
value of the consequences which may result from the litigation.'" [quotation omitted]);
City of Ecorse v. United States Steel Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21065, at *5-6; No.
05-cv-73826 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 26, 2007) (same); Planning & Dev. Dep’t v. Daughters of
Union Veterans of the Civil War, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31164, at *20-21; No. 05-cv72328 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 28, 2005) (same); Great Lake Spice Co. v. GB Seasonings, Inc.,
2005 U.S. LEXIS 9112; No. 05-cv-70387 (E.D. Mich. April 26, 2005).
8.

Here, the injunctive relief sought if Plaintiff’s suit is successful, which

would essentially bar Defendants from communicating with prospective clients who have
legal disputes with Thomas Cooley, is exceptionally valuable. For example, in the suit
where Defendants are, in part, representing clients in a putative class action against
Thomas Cooley, the damages sought are in excess of $250,000,000.
9.

Service and Notice of the filing of this Notice of Removal will be given to

Plaintiff as is required. A true and correct copy of this Notice will be filed with the Clerk
of the Circuit Court for the County of Ingham, State of Michigan.
DATED: August 10, 2011

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
HYDER LAW FIRM, P.C.
By: /s/ Steven Hyder
Steven Hyder (P69875)
Hyder Law Firm, P.C.
PO Box 2242
Monroe, MI 48161
[e-mail]
Phone [phone]
5

Jesse Strauss (admission pending)
Kurzon Strauss LLP
305 Broadway, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone [phone]
Facsimile [phone]

6