UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CASE NO. 20-CV-00577

EPIC TECH, LLC and WINTER SKY, LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNO RESOURCES, LLC,

Defendant.

/

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Defendant Arno Resources, LLC (“Defendant”), files this Notice of Removal of this civil 

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. The grounds for removal are as follows:

1. Defendant is the only defendant in this civil action brought by Plaintiffs Epic Tech, 

LLC and Winter Sky, LLC (“Plaintiffs”), in the District Court of the 261st Judicial District in and 

for Travis County, Texas, styled Epic Tech, LLC and Winter Sky, LLC v. Arno Resources, LLC, 

Case No. D-1-GN-20-02870.

2. The Petition initiating this action, attached hereto as Exhibit A, was filed with the 

state court on May 29, 2020. The Complaint has not been served on Defendant.

3. This Notice of Removal is being filed within a year of the lawsuit being filed. It is 

therefore timely filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).

4. This case is removable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) due to diversity of 

citizenship and allegations in the Complaint of an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000, 

exclusive of interest and costs. Both Plaintiffs are Delaware limited liability companies the 

members of which are citizens of states other than the State of Texas. Defendant is a Texas limited 

Case 1:20-cv-00577-LY Document 1 Filed 05/31/20 Page 1 of 4
2

liability company the members of which members are citizens of the State of Texas. The Court 

therefore has jurisdiction, as complete diversity exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

5. The amount in controversy in this action also satisfies the requirements for diversity 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Where, as here, a suit seeks equitable remedies such as 

declaratory judgment, the amount in controversy is determined by the value of the object of the 

litigation. St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998). For 

purposes of this analysis, the “value of the object of the litigation” is the “pecuniary result” that 

would flow to either party if the court were to grant declaratory relief. Id. This action for 

declaratory relief is an anticipatory suit filed by Plaintiffs in an effort to “race to the courthouse” 

before Defendant filed its own suit against the Plaintiffs for unlawfully using Defendant’s gaming 

software and source code. (See Petition ¶ 22.) In their Petition, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory 

judgment that they were released from any liability pursuant to a settlement agreement entered 

into by the predecessors-in-interest to the parties to this suit.

6. In its putative suit, which Defendant is shortly filing in the Northern District of 

Georgia as it intended to do prior to Plaintiffs’ race to the courthouse, Defendant seeks damages 

in excess of $75,000.00. (See Ex. C to Petition.) Based upon discovery taken in other matters, the 

annual net revenue of Plaintiffs and their affiliated entities that Defendant intends to sue are in 

excess of $100,000,000.00. Defendant’s predecessor-in-interest charged a 8% license fee based 

on net revenue. Therefore, under one measure of Defendant’s damages, the cost of legitimately 

licensing Defendant’s gaming software and source code—which has proven to be extremely 

popular and successful—at the scale at which Plaintiffs have illegitimately used it would be tens 

of millions of dollars. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege in their Petition that the cost of developing the 

software and source code was $447,000 back in 2004—this is thus evidence of the minimum 

Case 1:20-cv-00577-LY Document 1 Filed 05/31/20 Page 2 of 4
3

amount that Plaintiffs would have needed to pay had they legitimately purchased the software and 

source code for their own use. (Petition at ¶ 7.) Even this far smaller number clears the 

jurisdictional threshold. In sum, because a declaratory judgment in this action would potentially 

implicate Defendant’s ability to prosecute its tort claims against the Plaintiffs, and because the 

damages arising from those tort claims exceed $75,000, the amount in controversy here more than 

satisfies the jurisdictional requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

7. Written notice of the filing of this Notice of Removal has been contemporaneously 

served on counsel for Plaintiffs as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). A copy of the Notice of Filing 

Notice of Removal is attached as Exhibit B. A duplicate copy of this Notice of Removal will also 

be filed with the District Clerk for the District Court of the 261st Judicial District in and for Travis 

County, Texas, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).

WHEREFORE, Defendant hereby removes this action to this Honorable Court. 

Case 1:20-cv-00577-LY Document 1 Filed 05/31/20 Page 3 of 4
4

Dated: May 31, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By:

/s/ Matthew R. Beatty

Matthew R. Beatty, Esq.

State Bar No. 24001169

BEATTY NAVARRE STRAMA PC

901 S Mo PAC Expy Ste 200 Bldg 1

Austin, TX 78746-5759

Tel.: 512-879-5050

mbeatty@bnsfirm.com

-andJustin B. Kaplan, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 33725

Elaine Kussurelis

Florida Bar No. 1019234

DIFALCO FERNANDEZ KAPLAN

777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 630

Miami, Florida 33131

Tel.: 305-569-9800

Fax: 866-569-0666

Jkaplan@dfkfirm.com

elaine@dfkfirm.com

Benjamin H. Brodsky, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 73748

Joshua Truppman, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 11795

BRODSKY FOTIU-WOJTOWICZ, PLLC

200 SE 1st Street, Suite 400

Miami, Florida 33131

Tel: 305-503-5054

Fax: 786-749-7644

bbrodsky@bfwlegal.com

joshua@bfwlegal.com

docketing@bfwlegal.com 

(pro hac vice applications forthcoming)

Case 1:20-cv-00577-LY Document 1 Filed 05/31/20 Page 4 of 4