Corpus: 543,223 opinions ·
3,177 judges ·
newest 2026-06-23 · expanding
Coverage ↗
Opinion
govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_25-cv-00551-0
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
C a r l o s H e r n a n d e z ,
Plaintiff,
v . MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Dave & Buster’s, Inc. Civil No. 25-551 ADM/JFD
and Anthony Donatelle,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Drew Kudlinski, Esq., and Emma R. Denny, Esq., HKM Employment Attorneys, LLP,
Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Plaintiff.
Marko J. Mrkonich, Esq., and Nathan T. Boone, Esq., Littler Mendelson, P.C., Minneapolis,
MN, on behalf of Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________________
I. INTRODUCTION
On January 7, 2026, the undersigned United Stat es District Judge heard oral argument on
Plaintiff Carlos Hernandez’s (“Hernandez”) Motion to Lift Stay and Remand [Docket No. 31],
and Defendant Dave & Buster’s, Inc. (“Dave & Buster’s”) and Anthony Donatelle’s
(“Donatelle”) (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Compel Arbitration and Vacate Arbitration
Award [Docket No. 19] and Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 25]. For the reasons set forth
below, Hernandez’s motion is granted and Defendants’ motions are not reached.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Allegations
Hernandez, a Minnesota resident, began working in 2001 as a cook for Dave & Buster’s,
a Missouri corporation. Compl. [Docket No. 1, Attach. 1] ¶¶ 1-2, 6. In 2023, Hernandez was
assigned to a new location in Maple Grove, Minnesota, where he assisted with opening the
CASE 0:25-cv-00551-ADM-JFD Doc. 46 Filed 03/06/26 Page 1 of 8
2
location and worked as a kitchen manager. Id. ¶ 7. Donatelle, also a Minnesota resident, was
Hernandez’s manager. Id. ¶¶ 3, 11.
In April 2024, Hernandez saw a doctor for osteoarthritis in his knee and was given a
steroid injection. Id. ¶¶ 8, 11. After the appointment, Hernandez gave Donatelle a doctor’s note
stating that Hernandez would need to ice and elevate his leg. Id. ¶ 11. Hernandez alleges that
soon after receiving the note, Donatelle began micromanaging him, swearing at him, and writing
him up for errors that were not his fault. Id. ¶ 12.
In July 2024, Donatelle placed Hernandez on a performance improvement plan. Id. ¶ 13.
Later that month, Hernandez suffered a flare-up of his osteoarthritis that required multiple doctor
visits. Id. ¶¶ 14-16. On July 30, 2024, a doctor provided Hernandez with a list of work
restrictions for Hernandez that included working no more than six to seven hours per day, not
lifting over 40 pounds, and taking a 15-minute break every hour. Id. ¶ 16. Hernandez alleges
that after Donatelle received the doctor’s note, he joked about Hernandez’s medical condition
and the need for accommodations. Id. ¶ 17.
In early August 2024, Hernandez submitted a doc tor’s note stating he would require knee
surgery on September 3, 2024 and would need to be off from work for two weeks following the
surgery. Id. ¶ 18. Hernandez alleges that days after he provided the doctor’s note, he was fired
for “failing to meet company expectations and improve his performance.” Id. ¶ 18-19.
B. Procedural Background
In January 2025, Hernandez commenced th is action against Defendants in Hennepin
County District Court of Minnesota, alleging disability discrimination in violation of the
Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) against Dave & Buster’s, and reprisal in violation of
the MHRA against both Defendants. Id. ¶¶ 20-31.
CASE 0:25-cv-00551-ADM-JFD Doc. 46 Filed 03/06/26 Page 2 of 8
3
In February 2025, Defendants removed the action to this Court, invoking diversity
jurisdiction based on Defendants’ assertion that Donatelle had been fraudulently joined. Notice
Removal [Docket No. 1] ¶¶ 2, 5-6. Defendants then moved to compel arbitration [Docket No.
3], and Hernandez moved to remand [Docket No. 10].
Before the motions were argued, the parties jointly moved to stay the case pending
arbitration [Docket No. 15], and the Court granted the motion to stay pending the Arbitrator’s
ruling on the arbitrability of Hernandez’s claims. Order [Docket No. 17]. In October 2025, the
Arbitrator dismissed the arbitration for lack of arbitral jurisdiction, holding that the Arbitration
Agreement was void for illusory consideration. Denny Decl. [Docket No. 39] Ex. C.
Defendants now move to vacate the arbitration award and compel arbitration.
Defendants also move to dismiss the MHRA reprisal claim against Donatelle, arguing that he
was fraudulently joined for the purpose of defeating diversity jurisdiction. Hernandez moves to
lift the stay and remand the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Donatelle
was properly joined as a defendant because the reprisal claim against him is supported by a
reasonable basis in fact and law.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Hernandez’s Motion to Lift Stay and Remand
The Court will first consider Hernandez’s motion to lift the stay and remand for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, because if jurisdiction is lacking the Court cannot adjudicate
Defendants’ motions. See, e.g., Prospect Funding Holdings (NY), LLC v. Ronald J. Palagi, P.C.,
L.L.C., 76 F.4th 785, 787–88 (8th Cir. 2023) (dismissing an application to vacate arbitration
awards for lack of jurisdiction where the dispute did not include a federal question or diversity of
citizenship).
CASE 0:25-cv-00551-ADM-JFD Doc. 46 Filed 03/06/26 Page 3 of 8
4
1. Legal Standard
“In every federal case the court must be satisfied that it has jurisdiction before it turns to
the merits of other legal arguments.” Carlson v. Arrowhead Concrete Works, Inc., 445 F.3d
1046, 1050 (8th Cir. 2006). If a district court concludes that it does not have subject matter
jurisdiction over a removed case, it must remand the case. Filla v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 336 F.3d
806, 809 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)).
Federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U. S.C. § 1332 requires complete diversity of
citizenship. Great River Ent., LLC v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 81 F.4th 1261, 1262 (8th Cir. 2023).
“If any plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant, there is not ‘complete diversity’
and federal courts lack jurisdiction.” Id. When a plaintiff has joined a non-diverse party as a
defendant in a state case that is later removed, the defendants may avoid remand only by
showing that the non-diverse party was fraudulently joined. Filla, 336 F.3d at 809.
“Fraudulent joinder occurs when a plaintiff files a frivolous or illegitimate claim against a
non-diverse defendant solely to prevent removal.” In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig., 591 F.3d
613, 620 (8th Cir. 2010). “[J]oinder is fraudulent when there exists no reasonable basis in fact
and law supporting a claim against the resident defendant[].” Filla, 336 F.3d at 810 (quoting
Wiles v. Capitol Indemnity Corp., 280 F.3d 868, 871 (8th Cir. 2002)). “However, if there is a
‘colorable’ cause of action---that is, if the state law might impose liability on the resident
defendant under the facts alleged---then there is no fraudulent joinder.” Id. (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted) (emphasis in original).
“It is a defendant’s burden to establish fraudulent joinder, and that burden is a heavy
one.” Arens v. O’Reilly Auto., Inc., 874 F. Supp. 2d 805, 808 (D. Minn. 2012). To meet this
burden, it must be “clear under governing state law that the complaint does not state a cause of
CASE 0:25-cv-00551-ADM-JFD Doc. 46 Filed 03/06/26 Page 4 of 8
5
action against the non-diverse defendant.” Knudson v. Sys. Painters, Inc., 634 F.3d 968, 980
(8th Cir. 2011) (emphasis in original). “All doubts about federal jurisdiction should be resolved
in favor of remand to state court.” In re Prempro, 591 F.3d at 620.
2. Analysis
Hernandez argues that a reasonable basis in fact and law exists to support an MHRA
reprisal claim against Donatelle, and thus Defendants cannot satisfy their heavy burden of
showing that Donatelle was fraudulently joined. Hernandez thus contends that diversity
jurisdiction is lacking and the case must be remanded to state court.
Defendants argue that Donatelle was fraudulently joined because (1) the MHRA reprisal
statute does not impose personal liability on managers, and (2) even if it does, Hernandez has not
alleged facts to support a reprisal claim against Donatelle.
a. Individual Liability U nder the Reprisal Statute
The MHRA reprisal statute, Minn. Stat . § 363A.15, states in relevant part:
It is an unfair discriminatory practice for any individual who
participated in the alleged discrimination as a perpetrator, employer,
labor organization, employment agency, public accommodation,
public service, educatio nal institution, or owner, lessor, lessee,
sublessee, assignee or managing ag ent of any real property, or any
real estate broker, real estate salesperson, or employee or agent
thereof to intentionally engage in any reprisal against any person
[who engages in protected activity].
The parties disagree about whether this la nguage allows for individual liability against
managers. Hernandez argues that the phrases “any individual” and “employee or agent thereof”
establish that § 363A.15 holds liable any person who engages in retaliation either in their
personal capacity or as an employee. Defendants read the language differently, arguing that the
phrase “employee or agent thereof” refers only to employees or agents of real estate brokers or
salespersons.
CASE 0:25-cv-00551-ADM-JFD Doc. 46 Filed 03/06/26 Page 5 of 8
6
Although no Minnesota appellate court has directly addressed the issue, several state and
federal district courts have held that the language of the MHRA’s reprisal statute arguably
imposes individual liability on supervisors and managers who retaliate in the scope of their
employment. See Arens, 874 F. Supp. 2d at 809 (“The Court simply cannot conclude that
Minnesota law would (or would not) impose liability on [the individual supervisor] for reprisal.
Accordingly, the Court determines that [the supervisor] was not fraudulently joined, diversity
does not exist, removal was improper, and the case must be remanded.”); Lovely v. Circle K
Stores, Inc., No. 24-1010 DWF/DTS, 2024 WL 3300563, at *1 (D. Minn. July 3, 2024)
(remanding case where it was “unclear” whether plaintiff’s supervisor may be individually liable
for reprisal under the MHRA); Larson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 13-2117 ADM/JJK, 2014
WL 300933, at *2-3 (D. Minn. Jan. 27, 2014) (concluding that the MHRA reprisal statute
arguably imposes individual liability on supervisors and remanding case to state court); Pearson
v. Rohn Industries, Inc., No. 73-CV-12-7130, 2013 WL 11320101, at *1-*4 (Minn. Dist. Ct.
Nov. 19, 2013) (denying motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s MHRA reprisal claims
against defendant company’s owner, president, and sales manager); Pribyl v. Bernard J. Mulcahy
Co., Inc., No. 19HA-CV-23-5288, 2024 WL 4007470, at *1, *4 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Apr. 12, 2024)
(concluding MHRA reprisal statute provides liability for individuals and denying motion to
dismiss plaintiff’s reprisal claims against individual defendants including plaintiff’s supervisor).
The above cases provide a reasonable basis in law for predicting that Hernandez’s
manager, Donatelle, might be held individually liable for reprisal under Minn. Stat. § 315A.15.
While Minnesota law is not entirely clear on the issue of individual liability for managers under
the reprisal statute, the Court “has no responsibility to definitively settle the ambiguous question
of state law.” Filla, 336 F.3d at 811 (emphasis in original). Instead, “the better practice is for the
CASE 0:25-cv-00551-ADM-JFD Doc. 46 Filed 03/06/26 Page 6 of 8
7
federal court not to decide the doubtful question in connection with a motion to remand but
simply to remand the case and leave the question for the state courts to decide.” Id.
b. Factual Basis for Reprisal Claim against Donatelle
The reprisal claim against Donatelle is also supported by a reasonable basis in fact. To
establish a prima facie case of MHRA reprisal, a plaintiff must show: “(1) statutorily-protected
conduct by the employee; (2) adverse employment action by the employer; and (3) a causal
connection between the two.” Hoover v. Norwest Priv. Mortg. Banking, 632 N.W.2d 534, 548
(Minn. 2001) (internal quotations omitted). An employee engages in protected conduct under
the reprisal statute when the employee seeks an accommodation for their disability. Id. at 549.
Here, Hernandez alleges that after he informed Donatelle of his osteoarthritis in late April
2024, Donatelle swore at him, micromanaged him, and put him on a performance improvement
plan in July 2024. Hernandez further alleges that after he submitted doctor’s notes in late July
and early August 2024 requesting work restrictions and informing Defendants of his upcoming
knee surgery, he was terminated on August 9, 2024 for purported poor job performance. It is
plausible to infer from these allegations that (1) Hernandez engaged in statutorily-protected
conduct by requesting accommodations for his osteoarthritis, (2) Donatelle (as Hernandez’s
supervisor and the person who placed him on the performance improvement plan) made the
decision to fire Hernandez, and (3) a casual connection exists between the protected conduct and
the adverse employment action. The length of Hernandez’s employment with Dave & Buster’s
(more than 20 years) before he was placed on a performance improvement plan also gives some
credence to the reprisal allegations against Donatelle.
Because there is an arguably reasonable ba sis for predicting that state law might impose
liability on Donatelle based on the facts alleged, the Court concludes that he was not fraudulently
CASE 0:25-cv-00551-ADM-JFD Doc. 46 Filed 03/06/26 Page 7 of 8
8
joined. Accordingly, diversity jurisdiction does not exist, removal was improper, and
Hernandez’s motion to lift the stay and remand the case to state court will be granted.
B. Defendants’ Motions
Because the Court has remanded this case to state court, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
and Motion to Compel Arbitration and Vacate the Arbitration Award need not be considered in
federal court.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that:
1. Plaintiff Carlos Hernandez’ s Motion to Lift Stay and Remand [Docket No. 31] is
GRANTED;
2. Defendants Dave & Buster’s, Inc. an d Anthony Donatelle’s Motion to Compel
Arbitration and Vacate Arbitration Award [Docket No. 19] and Motion to Dismiss
[Docket No. 25] are not reached in federal court; and
3. This case is REMANDED to Hennepin County District Court.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
B Y T H E C O U R T :
s/Ann D. Montgomery
Dated: March 6, 2026 ANN D. MONTGOMERY
U . S . D I S T R I C T C O U R T
CASE 0:25-cv-00551-ADM-JFD Doc. 46 Filed 03/06/26 Page 8 of 8