Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
City Center v Office Depot

City Center v Office Depot

Ratings: (0)|Views: 638|Likes:
Published by Seth Leventhal
City Center Associates Ltd. Partnership Notice of Removal, filed with the United States District Court, District of Minnesota
City Center Associates Ltd. Partnership Notice of Removal, filed with the United States District Court, District of Minnesota

More info:

Published by: Seth Leventhal on Jan 22, 2010
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/26/2010

pdf

text

original

 
70775492.1
- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF MINNESOTACITY CENTER ASSOCIATESLIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Connecticutlimited partnershipPlaintiff,v.OFFICE DEPOT, INC.,Defendant.
DEFENDANT OFFICE DEPOT, INC.’SNOTICE OF REMOVAL TOFEDERAL COURT
 Court File No. ________________
 
Defendant Office Depot, Inc. (“Office Depot” or “Defendant”), for its Notice of Removal of this case to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota,states as follows:1. Defendant and Plaintiff are parties to a lease for the use of commercialproperty at the City Center mall in downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota. Defendant is thetenant, and Plaintiff is the landlord. On or about December 31, 2009, Defendant receiveda Summons and Complaint styled as an eviction action, entitled
City Center Associates Limited Partnership v. Office Depot, Inc
., 27-CV-HC-09-9652, venued in HennepinCounty District Court, Fourth Judicial District, State of Minnesota. A copy of theSummons and Complaint is attached as Exhibit A.2. On January 11, 2010, Defendant Answered the Complaint, denying allrelevant allegations. A copy of this Answer is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
Case 0:10-cv-00191-RHK-JJK Document 1 Filed 01/22/10 Page 1 of 4
 
70775492.1
- 2 -
3. Also on January 11, 2010, a hearing before a Referee was scheduled inHennepin County District Court. While both Plaintiff and Defendant appeared, andalthough Defendant submitted a hearing memorandum, attached hereto as Exhibit C, nohearing took place. Plaintiff had made a demand for a judge rather than a referee, and theparties were asked to assemble in Judge John McShane’s courtroom. Because Defendanthad made a jury demand, however, Judge McShane did not conduct a substantivehearing. The parties agreed to appear for a jury trial on February 2, 2010. A copy of thescheduling notice is attached as Exhibit D.4. On January 15, 2010, Plaintiff’s counsel executed an Amended Complaint,which was served via U.S. Mail on January 19, 2010, and received by Defendant onJanuary 20, 2010. A copy of this Amended Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit E.No further substantive proceedings have taken place in this action since the receipt of theAmended Complaint by Defendant.5. This is a civil action over which this Court has original jurisdiction under28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity) and which may be removed to this Court by defendantpursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Plaintiff is a Connecticut corporationwith its principal place of business in Minnesota. Defendant is a Delaware corporationwith its principal place of business in Florida. There is thus complete diversity of citizenship.6. The amount in controversy in this suit exceeds the jurisdictional thresholdof an amount in excess of $75,000.00. At issue in this case is a multi-year lease forcommercial property between the parties. First executed in 1999, the initial ten year term
Case 0:10-cv-00191-RHK-JJK Document 1 Filed 01/22/10 Page 2 of 4
 
70775492.1
- 3 -
of the lease has been continued pursuant to an executed extension of the Lease byDefendant. There are more than three years remaining on the current term of the lease,and Defendant has the right to extend the lease for three additional terms of five yeareach. Pursuant to the Lease between the parties, the use of the property is valuated at$15,479.17 per month.
See
Exhibit A att’d to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, att’dhereto as Exhibit E, at p. 4, § 4.01. Pursuant to a rent abatement provision in the lease,however, Defendant’s rent is abated as a result of the Plaintiff’s failure to maintain aminimum level of retail co-tenancy in the City Center mall.
See id.
at 10, § 5.04. In itscurrent Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the rental value of the property is $10,479,17 permonth.
See
Exhibit E at ¶ 17. In its Amended Complaint, Plaintiff now alleges that therent abatement provision of the Lease has been nullified, giving Plaintiff the alleged rightto payment of rent under the Lease.
See id.
at ¶ 17. The value of the alleged right soughtto be enforced by Plaintiff in this action, recovery of the property or the forced paymentof rent in contravention of the Lease’s abatement provision, thus exceeds $100,000 forthis year alone, and exceeds $2,000,000.00 for the remaining life of the lease. The issuein controversy thus exceeds the jurisdictional amount of more than $75,000 set forth in28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).7. This action may be removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) because thisCourt has original diversity jurisdiction.8. On the same date as this Notice of Removal was signed, Defendant servedby hand delivery a copy of this Notice of Removal upon Plaintiff’s counsel at the address
Case 0:10-cv-00191-RHK-JJK Document 1 Filed 01/22/10 Page 3 of 4

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->