CASE 0:20-cv-01275 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Scott W. Johnson, Civil File No. _______________

Plaintiff,

vs. COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR

JURY TRIAL
Jan Malcolm in Her Official and Individual
Capacities; and the Minnesota Department
of Health,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Scott W. Johnson (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Johnson”) brings this action against

Defendants Jan Malcolm in her official and individual capacities (“Malcolm” or the

“Commissioner”) and the Minnesota Department of Health (“MDH”) (collectively the

“Defendants”) to rectify an ongoing deprivation of Mr. Johnson’s First Amendment

rights under the United States Constitution. As grounds therefor, Plaintiff alleges as

follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff Scott Johnson has worked as a professional journalist for more

than 25 years covering Minnesota and national news. Most recently, Mr. Johnson has

covered Minnesota’s response to the COVID-19 outbreak. Between April 10, 2020 and

April 27, 2020, the Minnesota Department of Health authorized Mr. Johnson to access a

media only telephonic conference line to ask questions of individuals presenting during

the daily briefings held by the MDH regarding the state’s response to COVID-19.
 CASE 0:20-cv-01275 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 2 of 13

2. On April 27, Mr. Johnson asked a question that possibly exposed problems

with the MDH’s strategy for combating the COVID-19 outbreak. MDH emails show that

this question was “flagged” for further discussion between MDH staff and the Governor’s

staff. Mr. Johnson was thereafter excluded from all future daily briefings without

explanation.

3. The MDH’s decision to exclude Mr. Johnson was a form of content and

viewpoint-based discrimination that infringes upon his First Amendment Rights as an

individual and as a member of the press. Mr. Johnson brings this action to rectify this

ongoing constitutional violation.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This is an action for civil damages and injunctive relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 based on the violation of Mr. Johnson’s rights under the First and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction in this Court

exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1342 based on violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

and claims arising under the United States Constitution.

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over all Defendants because they have

substantial contacts with and/or are domiciled within this District.

6. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) in that “a

substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred” in this District.

2
 CASE 0:20-cv-01275 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 3 of 13

PARTIES

7. Plaintiff Scott Johnson is a citizen and resident of Minnesota, an attorney,

and a journalist. For more than 25 years Mr. Johnson has written professionally on

public policy issues including income inequality, income taxes, campaign finance reform,

affirmative action, welfare reform, and race in the criminal justice system. Plaintiff’s

articles have appeared in magazines including National Review and the Weekly Standard

as well as newspapers including the New York Times, the New York Post, the Minneapolis

Star Tribune, and the St. Paul Pioneer Press. Currently, Mr. Johnson writes for Power

Line, an award winning conservative news website that has been reporting stories and

providing commentary on the news for more than eighteen years.

8. In addition to his career in journalism, Mr. Johnson has also been a

successful member of the Minnesota Bar since 1979. Mr. Johnson clerked for the Eighth

Circuit from 1979 to 1981, when he entered private practice as an associate and partner at

Faegre and Benson from 1981 to 1997. In 1997, Mr. Johnson became Senior Vice

President and regional counsel at TCF Financial, a position he held until 2009. Between

2010 and 2014, Mr. Johnson served as counsel for Delta Dental of Minnesota.

9. Defendant Jan Malcolm is the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department

of Health. Ms. Malcolm’s office is located at 625 Robert Street North, Saint Paul, MN

55164. As commissioner for the MDH, Ms. Malcolm is responsible for directing the

work of the MDH, and has supervisory control over the MDH daily briefings relating to

the COVID-19 outbreak.

3
 CASE 0:20-cv-01275 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 4 of 13

10. Defendant the Minnesota Department of Health is a Minnesota

Administrative Agency, which employs approximately 1,400 employees through

Minnesota. The MDH provides various services, including birth and death certificates,

monitoring for infectious diseases, responses to disease outbreaks and public health

emergencies, data to identify public health concerns, information about effective

approaches to improving health, and advice about reducing environmental and pollution

risks to health, among other services. The main offices of the MDH are located at 625

Robert Street North, St. Paul, MN 55164.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

11. On March 13, 2020, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz issued Executive

Order 20-01, “Declaring a Peacetime Emergency and Coordinating Minnesota’s Strategy

to Protect Minnesotans from COVID-19.”

12. In Executive Order 20-01, Governor Walz noted that “the infectious disease

known as COVID-19 . . . has now been detected in 118 countries and territories,

including the United States. COVID-19 has been reported in 42 states. There are over

1,600 confirmed cases nationwide, including fourteen in Minnesota.”

13. The Governor’s Executive Order 20-01 further stated that “MDH has been

preparing for and responding to the CODID-19 pandemic in Minnesota,” and determined

that “MDH will continue to lead the coordination of the State’s response to COVID-19.”

14. On March 25, 2020, Governor Walz issued Executive order 20-20

“Directing Minnesotans to Stay at Home.” Among other things, this executive order

4
 CASE 0:20-cv-01275 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 5 of 13

mandated that “all persons currently living within the State of Minnesota . . . stay at home

or in their place of residence” except to engage in certain activities and work.

15. On March 27, 2020, MDH began hosting a daily briefing regarding the

COVID-19 outbreak and Minnesota’s response to the pandemic. These daily briefings

are streamed live via the publicly accessible MDH website and are also televised and

broadcast to the public at large.

16. All participation on the daily MDH calls is conducted entirely remotely in a

conference call format, with the audio broadcast and live-streamed. Due to this remote

format, the MDH designated a conference line for journalists wishing to ask questions of

the individuals presenting during the MDH daily briefings. This conference line was not

available to the public at large, and journalists desiring access to the conference line were

required to request access from the MDH, which would then add them to a distribution

list of journalists authorized to ask questions during the daily briefings.

17. Journalists on the distribution list would receive email notification of each

day’s call, advising them of a telephone number to call, and an access code to enter,

which would allow them to participate in a conference call during which they could ask

questions of the presenters (the “MDH Conference Line”).

18. The journalists on the MDH Conference Line entered a telephone queue to

ask their questions. Those journalists that asked their questions live had their questions

and the MDH panelists’ responses broadcast live via the internet across the state.

19. Due to the number of journalists on the MDH Conference Line, those

individuals that did not have their questions answered during the daily briefing were also

5
 CASE 0:20-cv-01275 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 6 of 13

invited to submit written questions to the MDH following the briefing. Upon information

and belief, MDH responds to these written questions, and responded to Mr. Johnson’s

written questions through April 27, 2020.

20. On April 9, 2020. Mr. Johnson requested access to the MDH Conference

Line via an email to the MDH.

21. On April 10, 2020, MDH responded to Mr. Johnson’s request, and added

him to the distribution list of journalists, granting him access to the MDH Conference

Line. Although there were a few days during which MDH inadvertently excluded Mr.

Johnson from the Conference Line, Mr. Johnson generally received emails providing the

conference line access information from April 11, 2020 until April 27, 2020.

22. While Mr. Johnson had access to the MDH Conference Line, he asked a

number of questions following the MDH daily briefing, and on at least two occasions

published MDH’s responses to his questions in articles published on Power Line.

Quoting the MDH response verbatim allowed Mr. Johnson to provide readers insight into

MDH’s actions and thinking relating to COVID-19.

23. On April 27, 2020, after attending the MDH daily briefing via the MDH

Conference Line, Mr. Johnson sent an email to MDH asking two follow-up questions

regarding that afternoon’s presentation. Mr. Johnson asked the following two questions:

Question: Referring to the 286 total deaths to date, every

decedent under age 70 has died in long-term care or similar
setting. The youngest person to die outside long-term care was
in his 70’s. Why is it necessary to close the schools and shut
down the state to protect the at-risk population?

6
 CASE 0:20-cv-01275 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 7 of 13

Follow-up: How many decedents were moved from nursing

home to hospitals prior to their death? Would their death be
included in the long-term care number not?

24. The MDH responded to the first question, stating:

We have had deaths in people younger than 70 and certainly

many cases in all age groups. It is necessary to take the
community mitigation measures we have because all
Minnesotans are at risk from COVID 19, as none of us has
immunity. Some people, like those in long-term-care and those
with underlying health conditions, are far more at risk than
others. But if we didn’t reduce transmission in the community
as we have with the stay at home order, we would see far more
disease circulating and many times more serious cases that
would quickly overwhelm our health care system. Then, even
less-vulnerable people would not be able to get the care they
needed, such as intensive care, ventilators, etc., so we would
see far more deaths in people outside of the very frail and
elderly. That is what has happened in places like Italy and New
York.

25. The MDH responded to the second follow-up question stating:

Just as are cases, deaths are recorded by place of residence. So

if someone’s place of residence prior to their death was listed
as a long-term care facility, regardless of whether they were
hospitalized prior to their death, they would be recorded as a
death in a long-term-care resident.

26. Prior to issuing a response to Mr. Johnson, MDH employee Michael

Schommer forwarded Mr. Johnson’s questions to Jeremy Drucker and Emmalynn Bauer,

employees of Governor Walz’s office, and stated, “Flagging as an FYI for future

discussion.”

27. On information and belief, Mr. Schommer “flagg[ed]” Mr. Johnson’s

question to discuss the means by which MDH could avoid such questions in the future

7
 CASE 0:20-cv-01275 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 8 of 13

and what steps they could take to punish Mr. Johnson for asking question that exposed

possible flaws in strategy MDH has employed in responding to the COVID-19 crisis.

28. On April 28, 2020, the MDH chose not to provide Mr. Johnson with the

phone number and access code that would allow him to access the MDH Conference Line

and ask questions of the presenters during the briefing.

29. Mr. Johnson sent an email that afternoon to Mr. Schommer and Doug

Schultz, both MDH employees, asking why he was not provided this information. The

MDH did not respond to Mr. Johnson’s email.

30. On April 29, 2020, Mr. Johnson sent another email to MDH employee Mr.

Schommer, asking why he was not invited to participate in the daily briefing. MDH

again failed to respond.

31. Mr. Johnson sent another email on May 2, 2020 to Mr. Schommer and Mr.

Schultz asking why MDH was excluding him from the MDH Conference Line. Again,

MDH failed to respond.

32. On May 11, 2020, Mr. Johnson sent one final email asking that the MDH

include him in the daily briefings and asking why MDH had omitted him from the

briefings. MDH did not respond.

33. In addition to these emails, on approximately three occasions, Mr. Johnson

called and left messages for Mr. Schommer asking why he was being excluded from

covering the daily briefings. Mr. Johnson did not receive a response to any of his calls.

8
 CASE 0:20-cv-01275 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 9 of 13

34. To date, the MDH has not provided Mr. Johnson with journalist access to

the daily briefings, and has not provided him with any explanation for why they chose to

exclude him form more than a dozen briefings.

35. On information and belief, MDH did not revoke any other journalist’s

access to the MDH Conference Line at or around this same time.

36. The MDH’s decision to exclude Mr. Johnson has significantly hampered

his ability to cover the MDH daily briefings, including preventing him from asking

questions and receiving answers live, and from receiving written responses to his

questions following the daily briefing.

37. Despite his exclusion from the MDH Conference Line, Mr. Johnson

attempted to ask the MDH questions about the MDH daily briefing via email. MDH did

not respond to Mr. Johnson’s questions after April 27, 2020.

38. This exclusion has not only harmed Mr. Johnson, but also the many readers

who rely on Power Line as an essential news source.

39. As MDH never responded to Mr. Johnson’s questions regarding his

exclusion from the MDH Conference Line, Mr. Johnson did not learn of MDH’s decision

to “flag” his question and exclude him on the basis of the content and viewpoint

expressed in that question until approximately May 18, 2020, when Mr. Johnson received

responses to a data practices request he issued to Governor Walz’s office. Mr. Johnson

also issued a data practices request to MDH, which has acknowledged receipt of the

request, but has not yet responded substantively.

9
 CASE 0:20-cv-01275 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 10 of 13

40. On May 19, a different reporter for a different media organization received

a statement from MDH representatives providing an alleged basis for excluding Mr.

Johnson from the MDH Conference Line. MDH representatives implied Mr. Johnson

was excluded from the MDH Conference Line because he is not a professional journalist.

41. The alleged lack of credentials or professional journalist status as a basis

for excluding Mr. Johnson from the MDH Conference Line is plainly pretext and cannot

be squared with the facts or MDH’s own conduct between April 10 and April 27, 2020

with respect to Mr. Johnson’s access.

42. Upon learning that the MDH excluded him based on his viewpoint, Mr.

Johnson promptly engaged counsel and attempted to resolve this issue expeditiously,

without involving this Court.

43. The non-judicial attempt to have Mr. Johnson’s access to the MDH

Conference Line reinstated failed, and this action became necessary to vindicate Mr.

Johnson’s Constitutional rights.

COUNT I

(Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – First Amendment)

44. Mr. Johnson repeats, realleges, and incorporates the allegations in the

paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.

45. Defendants’ decision to revoke Mr. Johnson’s access to the MDH

Conference Line violates the First Amendment made applicable to the States through the

Fourteenth Amendment.

10
 CASE 0:20-cv-01275 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 11 of 13

46. Mr. Johnson’s questions following-up on the April 27, 2020 daily briefing

were protected activities under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

47. The MDH created a limited public forum by designating a state controlled

conference line for use by journalists to ask questions during the MDH daily briefing.

Journalists in this limited public forum entered a queue to ask questions during the MDH

briefing, and their questions would be broadcast across the State via the internet.

48. Upon receiving Mr. Johnson’s questions, the MDH flagged them for future

discussion with the Governor’s staff, and then, in retaliation for Mr. Johnson’s question,

chose to prevent him from accessing the daily briefing conference line, preventing him

from asking questions of those State officials presenting. Such an exclusion would

prevent a person of ordinary firmness from participating in the call.

49. The Defendants’ decision to exclude Mr. Johnson’s access to the MDH

Conference Line is a form of content and viewpoint-based discrimination meant to punish

Mr. Johnson for asking question that exposed possible flaws in the strategy MDH has

employed in responding to the COVID-19 crisis.

50. Defendants’ content and viewpoint-based exclusion of Mr. Johnson from

the MDH Conference Line violated Mr. Johnson’s clearly established constitutional

rights, and a reasonable official in Ms. Malcolm’s position would have known that the

exclusion of Mr. Johnson was unlawful and a violation of his First Amendment rights.

51. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Mr. Johnson has suffered and continues

to suffer irreparable harm. Not only has Mr. Johnson been unable to ask questions of the

11
 CASE 0:20-cv-01275 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 12 of 13

MDH panelists live, but MDH staff have refused to respond to his questions following

his exclusion from the MDH Conference Line.

52. Defendants’ exclusion of Mr. Johnson has also caused him unliquidated

and intangible damages in an amount exceeding $50,000 impairing his ability to report

and comment on the information otherwise made available by MDH.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter each of the

following forms of relief:

A. Immediate restoration of Mr. Johnson’s access to the MDH Conference Line so

that Mr. Johnson may continue to report on the MDH daily briefings and

perform his job as a journalist;

B. A declaration that the revocation of Mr. Johnson’s access to the MDH

Conference Line was unconstitutional, in violation of the First Amendment;

C. Injunctive relief prohibiting MDH and the Commissioner from excluding Mr.

Johnson from the MDH Conference Line;

D. Damages in excess of $50,000 in an amount to be determined at trial; and

E. An order granting Plaintiff costs, fees, and disbursements incurred in

connection with these proceedings and such further relief as this Court deems

just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial.

12
 CASE 0:20-cv-01275 Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 13 of 13

Dated: May 28, 2020 DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP

By s/ Theresa M. Bevilacqua _________

Theresa M. Bevilacqua (#031500X)
bevilacqua.theresa@dorsey.com
Ian Blodger (#0398254)
blodger.ian@dorsey.com
50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 340-2600
Facsimile: (612) 340-2868

Attorneys for Plaintiff Scott W. Johnson

13
 CASE 0:20-cv-01275 Document 1-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 1 of 2
JS 44 (Rev. 09/19) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

Scott W. Johnson Jan Malcolm in Her Individual and Official Capacities; and the
Minnesota Department of Health
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Ramsey County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Ramsey
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)

Theresa Bevilacqua, dorsey & whitney LLP, 50 South Sixth Street, Suite Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, 445 Minnesota Street,
1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 340-2600 Suite 1400, St. Paul, MN 55101

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4
of Business In This State

’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act
’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 400 State Reapportionment
’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 430 Banks and Banking
’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 450 Commerce
’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 835 Patent - Abbreviated ’ 460 Deportation
Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) (15 USC 1681 or 1692)
’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 485 Telephone Consumer
’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Protection Act
’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV
’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/
’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability ’ 751 Family and Medical Exchange
Medical Malpractice Leave Act ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS ’ 891 Agricultural Acts
’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: ’ 791 Employee Retirement ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 893 Environmental Matters
’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) ’ 895 Freedom of Information
’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party Act
’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 ’ 896 Arbitration
’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General ’ 899 Administrative Procedure
’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION Act/Review or Appeal of
Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application Agency Decision
’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration ’ 950 Constitutionality of
Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions State Statutes
’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition
’ 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1 Original ’ 2 Removed from ’ 3 Remanded from ’ 4 Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred from ’ 6 Multidistrict ’ 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 U.S.C. Section 1983
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Defendants violated Plaintiff's First Amendment rights by applying content-based restrictions on his speech
VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. Damages, Injunctive Relief, Attorney Fees JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No
and Costs
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 09/19) CASE 0:20-cv-01275 Document 1-1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 2 of 2
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.