Case 0:10-cv-00191-RHK-JJK Document 1 Filed 01/22/10 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

CITY CENTER ASSOCIATES

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Connecticut
limited partnership
DEFENDANT OFFICE DEPOT, INC.’S
NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO
Plaintiff,
FEDERAL COURT
v.
Court File No. ________________
OFFICE DEPOT, INC.,

Defendant.

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 commercial

property at the City Center mall in downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota. Defendant is the

tenant, and Plaintiff is the landlord. On or about December 31, 2009, Defendant received

a 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 Hennepin

County District Court, Fourth Judicial District, State of Minnesota. A copy of the

Summons and Complaint is attached as Exhibit A.

2. On January 11, 2010, Defendant Answered the Complaint, denying all

relevant allegations. A copy of this Answer is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

70775492.1 -1-
 Case 0:10-cv-00191-RHK-JJK Document 1 Filed 01/22/10 Page 2 of 4

3. Also on January 11, 2010, a hearing before a Referee was scheduled in

Hennepin County District Court. While both Plaintiff and Defendant appeared, and

although Defendant submitted a hearing memorandum, attached hereto as Exhibit C, no

hearing took place. Plaintiff had made a demand for a judge rather than a referee, and the

parties were asked to assemble in Judge John McShane’s courtroom. Because Defendant

had made a jury demand, however, Judge McShane did not conduct a substantive

hearing. The parties agreed to appear for a jury trial on February 2, 2010. A copy of the

scheduling 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 on

January 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 the

Amended Complaint by Defendant.

5. This is a civil action over which this Court has original jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity) and which may be removed to this Court by defendant

pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Plaintiff is a Connecticut corporation

with its principal place of business in Minnesota. Defendant is a Delaware corporation

with 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 threshold

of an amount in excess of $75,000.00. At issue in this case is a multi-year lease for

commercial property between the parties. First executed in 1999, the initial ten year term

70775492.1 -2-
 Case 0:10-cv-00191-RHK-JJK Document 1 Filed 01/22/10 Page 3 of 4

of the lease has been continued pursuant to an executed extension of the Lease by

Defendant. 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 year

each. 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’d

hereto 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 a

minimum level of retail co-tenancy in the City Center mall. See id. at 10, § 5.04. In its

current Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the rental value of the property is $10,479,17 per

month. See Exhibit E at ¶ 17. In its Amended Complaint, Plaintiff now alleges that the

rent abatement provision of the Lease has been nullified, giving Plaintiff the alleged right

to payment of rent under the Lease. See id. at ¶ 17. The value of the alleged right sought

to be enforced by Plaintiff in this action, recovery of the property or the forced payment

of rent in contravention of the Lease’s abatement provision, thus exceeds $100,000 for

this year alone, and exceeds $2,000,000.00 for the remaining life of the lease. The issue

in controversy thus exceeds the jurisdictional amount of more than $75,000 set forth in

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

7. This action may be removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) because this

Court has original diversity jurisdiction.

8. On the same date as this Notice of Removal was signed, Defendant served

by hand delivery a copy of this Notice of Removal upon Plaintiff’s counsel at the address

70775492.1 -3-
 Case 0:10-cv-00191-RHK-JJK Document 1 Filed 01/22/10 Page 4 of 4

set forth in the Complaint: Kevin R. Coan, Esq. and Laura N. Maupin, Esq., Barnes &

Thornburg, LLP, 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1100, Minneapolis, MN 55402.

9. On the same date as this Notice of Removal was signed, Defendant served

and filed by messenger a copy of this Notice of Removal with the District Court

Administrator for Hennepin County, Fourth Judicial District, Minnesota, the district in

which this action was commenced and pending at the time this Notice of Removal was

filed with this Court.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the above-entitled action

now pending against it in the Hennepin County District Court, Fourth Judicial District,

Minnesota, be removed therefrom to this Court.

Dated: January 22, 2010

S/Andre Hanson
Andre Hanson, #0258234
Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.
2100 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2112
(612) 321-2800
(612) 321-2288 Fax

Attorney for Defendant Office Depot, Inc.

70775492.1 -4-