1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JOSTENS INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

RONALD A. HAARSMA AND 

HERITAGE VINTAGE SPORTS 

AUCTIONS, INC.

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-0796-X

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Jostens, Inc. (“Jostens”) and Defendant Ronald A. Haarsma each 

claim ownership of a 2016 World Series Championship Ring. Jostens, the jeweler 

who made the ring, brought this conversion action against Haarsma, who is 

attempting to sell the ring. Haarsma raised a counterclaim seeking “a declaratory 

judgment that he is the sole owner and entitled to possession of the ring.”1 Before 

the Court is Jostens’ motion to dismiss that counterclaim. [Doc. No. 16].

Jostens alleges that Haarsma’s counterclaim is duplicative. Since the first 

element for a conversion claim in Texas is that “the plaintiff owned or had possession 

of the property or entitlement to possession,”2 Jostens is correct that Haarsma’s 

counterclaim is the mirror-image of the first element of Jostens’ claim.3 But while it 

1 Doc. No. 8 at 6.

2 Setliff v. Zoccam Technologies, Inc., No. 3:21-CV-2025-B, 2022 WL 504395, at *9 (N.D. Tex. 

Feb. 18, 2022) (Boyle, J.) (citing Tex. Integrated Conveyor Sys., Inc. v. Innovative Conveyor Concepts, 

Inc., 300 S.W.3d 348, 366 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied)).

3 See, e.g., Liberty Ins. Corp. v. Arch Ins. Co., No. 4:20‐CV‐098‐A, 2020 WL 3065523, at *3–4 

(N.D. Tex. June 8, 2020) (McBryde, J.) (dismissing counterclaim for declaratory relief that was 

Case 3:22-cv-00796-X Document 25 Filed 01/10/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 139
2

may be duplicative now, Haarsma’s counterclaim could prove useful should Jostens 

fail in its conversion claim. In that case, Haarsma’s counterclaim would no longer be 

duplicative, and would in fact be necessary to secure a ruling that he is the ring’s 

rightful owner.

The Court notes that the counterclaim Haarsma describes in his briefing does 

not go as far as the counterclaim that actually appears in his pleadings.4 To allow 

Haarsma the opportunity to broaden his requested declaratory relief, the Court 

GRANTS Jostens’ motion to dismiss and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

Haarsma’s counterclaim. Within twenty-eight days of this order, Haarsma may file 

an amended counterclaim that matches the counterclaim he describes in his briefing.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of January, 2023.

___________________________________

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

“duplicative because it [was] essentially the mirror-image of plaintiff’s claim”); see also Klein v. Fed. 

Ins. Co., Nos. 7:03-CV-102-D & 7:09-CV-094-D, 2014 WL 4476556, at *9 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 11, 2014) 

(Fitzwater, C.J.).

4 Compare Doc. No. 8 at 9 (asking the Court to enter a judgment declaring “that Haarsma, as 

a bona fide purchaser of the [r]ing, owns all right, title, and interest in and to the [r]ing; [] that Jostens 

has no rights or legitimate interests in the [r]ing; [] that Heritage has no right or legitimate interest 

in maintaining possession of the [r]ing; and [] that Heritage release the [r]ing to Haarsma immediately 

and without further delay”), with Doc. No. 17 at 5 (claiming that Haarsma seeks a declaration that 

the ring is World Series MVP “Ben Zobrist’s authentic, official 2016 Chicago Cubs World Series ring”).

Case 3:22-cv-00796-X Document 25 Filed 01/10/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 140