1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

TOTAL QUALITY LOGISTICS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

Case No.: 1:18-cv-353

TARPON TRANSPORTATION 

SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

/

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION BY 

DEFENDANT TARPON TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.

Defendant, Tarpon Transportation Services, Inc. (“Tarpon”), by counsel and pursuant 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, hereby removes the civil action entitled Total Quality Logistics, LLC 

v. Tarpon Transportation Services, Inc., pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Clermont 

County, Ohio (the “State Court”), Case No. 2018-CVH-00638 (the “State Action”), to the 

United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division.

1. On or about April 23, 2018, plaintiff Total Quality Logistics, LLC (“TQL”) filed 

a Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages (the “Complaint”) in the State Court to initiate 

the State Action. On or about April 27, 2018, the Summons and Complaint were received by 

Tarpon. True and correct copies of the Summons and Complaint are attached as Exhibit 1. The 

Summons and the Complaint constitute “all process, pleadings, and order served upon” Tarpon 

in the State Action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Tarpon has not served or filed any pleadings, nor 

made any appearance or argument, in the State Action.

2. Tarpon has timely filed this notice of removal within thirty days of receipt of the 

Summons and Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).

Case: 1:18-cv-00353-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/22/18 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 1
2

3. The State Action is removable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 because it is a civil 

action over which the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has original 

diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

4. Complete diversity of citizenship existed at the time the State Action was 

commenced and continues to exist. In the Complaint, TQL alleges that it is an Ohio limited 

liability company, see Complaint, ¶ 8, and upon information and belief all of TQL’s members are 

citizens of the State of Ohio. Tarpon is a Florida corporation, with its principal place of business 

in Tampa, Florida, and thus it is a citizen of the State of Florida. 

5. In the Complaint, TQL alleges that Tarpon, through TQL’s former employee, 

David R. Minnis (“Minnis”), has misappropriated trade secrets in violation of the Ohio Uniform 

Trade Secrets Act and that Tarpon has intentionally interfered with TQL’s employment 

agreement (the “Agreement”) with Minnis and is unfairly competing with TQL. 

6. TQL does not allege a specific amount of damages in the Complaint, but demands 

that judgment be entered in its favor for (a) injunctive relief “for one year from the Court’s final 

Order,” see Complaint ad damnum at ¶A; (b) compensatory and punitive damages and attorney 

fees of a maximum cumulative total of $70,000.00; (c) prejudgment interest; and (d) costs and 

expenses incurred in connection with this litigation, including reasonable attorney’s fees.

7. If a plaintiff does not set forth a specific amount of damages in excess of $75,000, 

a defendant need not prove to a legal certainty that the actual amount in controversy exceeds 

$75,000, but the defendant must show that “more likely than not,” the claim exceeds the federal 

amount in controversy requirement. Gafford v. Gen. Co., 997 F.2d 150, 158 (6th Cir. 1993), 

overruled on other grounds by Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 1191, 175 L.Ed.2d 1029 

(2010). Tarpon can establish that TQL’s claims exceed the federal amount in controversy 

Case: 1:18-cv-00353-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/22/18 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: 2
3

requirement because (i) TQL does not ascribe any value to the injunctive relief sought by the 

Complaint, and (ii) the Complaint is ambiguous as to whether attorney’s fees are included in 

TQL’s computation of the total amount in controversy. When combined with the alleged 

damages of $70,000, either of these is sufficient to establish that the amount in controversy 

exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum.

8. Though TQL does not attribute any value to the injunctive relief sought in the 

Complaint, a close reading of the Complaint reveals that it is worth not less than $40,000. 

(Clearly, the injunctive relief and protection of TQL’s purported confidential information and 

trade secrets has some value to TQL, or TQL would not have sought an injunction against 

Tarpon.) The value of the injunction is distinct from the compensatory damages sought by TQL, 

as compensatory damages would compensate TQL from the damages allegedly incurred in the 

past by Tarpon’s alleged use of TQL’s confidential information or trade secrets, not the ongoing 

or future damage to TQL that will allegedly occur if Tarpon, through Minnis, continues to utilize 

the information. See, e.g., Hritz v. United Steel Workers of Am., Ohio App. 12th Dist., 2003-

Ohio-5284, ¶42 (“Injunctive relief . . . is a preventive remedy, designed to guard against future 

injury rather than to afford redress for wrongs already suffered.”). The request for damages and 

the request for injunctive relief are each a separate “object” of the litigation, and valuing them 

separately does not double-count any component of the value of the case.

9. If the injunction is valued from Tarpon’s perspective, the loss of Minnis’ services 

as an independent contractor would cause annual lost profits of no less than $75,000 to Tarpon. 

This approach would result in an amount in controversy of at least $145,000 (not including 

attorney’s fees; see below).

Case: 1:18-cv-00353-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/22/18 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: 3
4

10. If the injunction is valued from TQL’s perspective, it is worth at least $40,000. 

The Complaint reveals as much, because it alleges that Minnis left his employment with TQL on 

July 22, 2016, see Complaint at ¶11, and that as of the filing of the complaint on April 23, 

2018—twenty-one months later, almost to the day—TQL had been damaged in the amount of 

$70,000. Simple arithmetic ($70,000 divided by 21) establishes that TQL has alleged that the 

misappropriation of its trade secrets has produced $3333 in damages per month. Given that the 

Complaint seeks future injunctive relief for twelve months, see Complaint ad damnum at ¶A, the 

value of the twelve-month injunction from TQL’s perspective is $40,000 ($3333 per month times 

12 months). Valuing the injunction with this approach would result in an amount in controversy 

of at least $110,000 (not including attorney’s fees; see below). (If TQL’s claim for $70,000 in 

damages covers a period of less than twenty-one months, then the value of twelve months of 

future injunctive relief is even more than $40,000.)

11. Attorney’s fees may be included in determining the amount in controversy for 

purposes of diversity if the fees are provided for by contract or where a statute mandates or 

expressly allows the payment of such fees. Williamson v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 481 F.3d 369, 376 

(6th Cir. 2007).

12. While Tarpon denies any entitlement of TQL to attorney’s fees, TQL seeks an 

award of attorney’s fees in the Complaint. It is unclear whether TQL contends that the 

Agreement provides the basis for an award of attorney’s fees (notwithstanding the fact that 

Tarpon is not a party to the Agreement) or whether TQL seeks fees under the Ohio Uniform 

Trade Secrets Act. Section 1333.64(C) of the Ohio Revised Code provides that the court may 

award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party on a claim brought under the Ohio 

Uniform Trade Secrets Act if “willful and malicious misappropriation exists.” TQL has alleged 

Case: 1:18-cv-00353-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/22/18 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: 4
5

that Tarpon’s conduct was willful and malicious. See Complaint, ¶ 57. Because the Ohio 

Uniform Trade Secrets Act allows for a recovery of attorney’s fees, those amounts must be 

included in calculating the amount in controversy for purposes of diversity. 

13. From the allegations of the Complaint, the “reasonable attorney’s fees” referenced 

in section D of the ad damnum clause are in addition to the compensatory and punitive damages

and attorney fees sought in section B of the same clause, and are in addition to the injunctive 

relief sought in section A of the same clause. Inasmuch as it would seem unlikely that the 

“reasonable attorney’s fees” sought in section D are less than $5000, the face of the Complaint 

establishes an amount in controversy in excess $75,000.00, even when counting only the 

monetary damages and attorney’s fees. When the value of the injunctive relief is added, the face 

of the Complaint establishes an amount in controversy of at least $115,000. This Court therefore 

has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

14. This notice of removal is filed by Tarpon, the sole defendant named in the 

Complaint.

15. Because the State Action is pending in Clermont County, removal to this Court 

and the Western division is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (establishing right to 

remove), 28 U.S.C. § 115(b)(1) (Clermont County is within Southern District of Ohio, Western 

Division), and S.D. Ohio Civ.R. 82.1(b) (Clermont County cases assigned to Western Division at 

Cincinnati).

16. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1441(d), written notice of the filing of this notice of 

removal will be served on TQL, the only adverse party, simultaneously with its filing. In 

addition, Tarpon is concurrently filing a copy of this notice of removal in the State Court.

Case: 1:18-cv-00353-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/22/18 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: 5
6

17. Also attached to this notice of removal are the following documents: civil cover 

sheet (Exhibit 2); supplemental civil cover sheet for removed cases (Exhibit 3); corporate

disclosure statement (Exhibit 4).

WHEREFORE, defendant Tarpon hereby gives notice and removes this action to the 

United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, and the State 

Court shall proceed no more.

Dated: May 22, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

BUSH ROSS, P.A.

Post Office Box 3913

Tampa, FL 33601

(813) 224-9255

(813) 223-9620 – Fax

By: /s/ Kathleen L. DiSanto

Kathleen L. DiSanto, Esquire

Florida Bar No. 58512

kdisanto@bushross.com

Attorneys for Tarpon Transportation, Services, 

Inc.

(pro hac vice forthcoming)

/s/ Jeffrey M. Nye

Jeffrey M. Nye (0082247)

STAGNARO, SABA 

& PATTERSON CO., L.P.A.

2623 Erie Ave., Cincinnati, OH 45208

(513) 533-6714

(513) 533-6711-fax

jmn@sspfirm.com

Trial Attorney for Tarpon Transportation 

Services, Inc.

Case: 1:18-cv-00353-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/22/18 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: 6
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was served on counsel for TQL by email, and through 

the Court’s CM/ECF system.

/s/ Jeffrey M. Nye 

Jeffrey M. Nye (0082247)

Case: 1:18-cv-00353-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/22/18 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: 7