Ci rc ui tJ udge Ter en c e T. E vans d i ed on August10, 20 11 , an d  di d notpar t i c i pat e i n the d ecision ofthi s c as e, whi c h i s be i ng re so lv ed b y a q u o ru m o f th e p a n el u n d er 28 U .S.C . § 4 6 (d ).



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 4111 M AT T HE W C ARROLL, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. S TRYKER C ORPO RA T I ON, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 09- cv-29

— Step hen L . C ro ck er, Magis trate Judge .
A RGUED J UNE 3, 2010

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 6, 2011

Befo re M A NI ON, E VANS , an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges .  S Y K ES, Cir cu i tJudg e . M atthew Carr ol lwas a c om m i ssio n ed sa les rep re se n ta tiv e a ss i g n e d to so licitord er s in W isc on sin for St ry ke r C or p or at ion (“S tr yk er ”), a m ed ica li ns tr u m ent m anufa cture r base d i n M i chi gan. S tr yke r2 N o. 09

- 4111 te r m i na te d Ca r r o l l ’ s empl o y m en t i n 2 00 8 be ca us e he f ai l ed to m eethi s quar ter l y s al es quota. W hen St ry ker re fused to pay hi m a com m i ssi on he fel t he w as ri ghtfully o w ed, Carr ol lsued S tryke r i n sta te cour t for unp ai d w age s un der W i sco nsi n’s wage- cl ai m st atute an d a l te r na ti ve l y s o ughtr ec o ve r y unde re qui tabl e co ntr act doctr i nes. S tr yke r re m ove d the ac ti on to federa l co ur t an d later m o ve d f o rs um m ary j udg m en t, a r g ui ng that Carr ol lwas bar re d fr om pu rs uinga sta tutory wage cl ai m bec ause he worke d on co m m i ssi on, and al so that equi tabl e co nt ract r el i efwas unavai l abl e be cause Carr ol l ’ s co m pensati on was the subj ect ofan e xpress contr act. Car r o l lr es po nde d b y v o lunt ar i l y di smi ss i nghi s st atutory c l ai m and see ki ng l eave to am end his co m p laint to add a cau se of acti on f orbr each o fco ntra ct. The di str i ct co ur t e nt er ed su m m ary j udg m en t f o rS try k er, a g r ee i ng th at C ar ro ll cou ld n ot r e c ov er u n d er an y e q u ita b le c o n t r act d octrine. Th e cou rt also d en ied C arroll ’s m oti on f orl eave to am end becau se the deadl i ne f or amen d ing th e pl ea di ng s ha d l o ngs i nc e pas se d a nd no re aso nabl e ca use had be en sho w n f orthe und ue del ay. Ca r r o l la pp e a l e d. A t o ra lar gum ent we not ed a pos sible j uri sdic ti onal i ssue re gar ding the a m ount in contr ove rs y. W e o rder ed su ppl ement alb r i efi nga nd no w co nc l ude that th e dam age s Car ro l lse eks ex c eed the $75, 000 thre shol d fo r d ive rs ity j u ris d ict ion
. See 28 U. S
. C. § 1 33 2( a)
. On th e me r i t s , w e a f fi r m. A l th o u g h C a r r o l lw a s a n a t
- wi l le mpl o y ee , hi s co m m i ss i o n-ba se d c o m pen sa ti o n was theN o. 09

- 4111 3

su bj ec t o f an ex p re ss c o n tr ac t, w h ich u n d er W isc on sin law prec lud es qu asi-contrac tu al r eli ef. Th e d istri ct cou rt di d no t ab us e i ts di sc r et i o n in de ny i ngl ea ve t o a m en d th e c om p lain t b ec au se C ar ro ll’s m o t i on ca m e u nj u st ifiab l y l a t e i n the l i t i g a t i o n, man y mon ths a ft e rthe dea dl i ne f o ra men di ngthe p l e a di ng s h a d p a s s e d.

I . B a c kg r o und I n J anuary20 03 St ry kero ffer ed Carr ol la posi ti on a s a ma r k e t i n ga s s o c i a t e . A tth a tt i me C a r r o l ls i g n e d a n e mplo ym ent a pp l i cati on r efl ecting tha t he w as a “ ter m i nabl eat
- wi l l e mpl o y e e ” a nd c o ul d b e “ t e r mi na t e d wi th or w i thout cause and w i th o r w i thou t n oti ce, atany ti m e, at th e o p tio n of eith er th e c om p an y or [h im se lf].” C ar ro ll als o sig n ed a c on fid en tia lity ag re em en t a n d anac kn ow le d g me n tth a th e h a d r e c e i v e d a co py o fS t r y k e r ’ s e mplo yee handbook
. The r ecei pt sta ted i n part : Iundersta nd thatany previ ous c ontr acts , p olic i es, o r r epr es en ta ti o ns r el at i ng to m y empl o y m en t ar e no l o ng e ri n e ffe c ta nd h a v e b e e n r e pla ced b y the Ha nd

boo k. Iundersta nd thatthe pu rpos e o fthe H andbook i s t o i nfo rm m e o fthe Com pany’s pol i ci es and rul es an d thatno o ne i s au th o r i ze d t o make c ha ng es i n the ter m s o fthi s Hand boo k, exce pt thr ough wri tte n re vi si on author i zed by St ry ker Leibi nger ’ s G en er al M anage r. S tr yke r Leibi ng er m ay add , change , o r re sci nd any ofthe pol i c ies , b enefi ts, o r pract i ces l i ste d, w i th o r w i thout advance no ti ce, atthe disc re ti on o fm anage m ent.4 N o. 09

- 4111 Exce pt f o rthe pa r ag r aphb elo w [ dea l i ngwi tha s i xm ont h li m itation on law su its after term ination], Iundersta nd thatnothi ng co ntai ned i n the Hand boo k co ns ti tu te s ane m pl o y m en t co nt r ac t be twe enthe Companya nd me. Iunde r st an d that m y e m pl o y m en t can be te rm i nated with orwitho ut cause and with orwitho ut not i ce b y the Com pany orbym e. I n 2005 St ry ker prom ote d Car ro l l to c om m i ssi oned sal es re presentati ve and i n 200 6 a ssi gned hi m to a te rrito ryi n W i sco nsi n. Ever y y earS tr yke r sent a wri tte n com pensati on pl an to i ts com m iss ion -b ase d sal es s t a ffo u t l i n i n gth e c o mpa n y ’ s c o mmi ss i o n s t r u c t u r e . As re l evanther e, the 2008 co m pensa tio n pl an pro vi ded that f orthe fi rs t s i x m onths of em plo ym ent, a com m i ssi oned sal es re p re senta ti ve w oul d rec ei ve a m onthl y dra w o f $6, 000, with c om m i ssi ons pai d on a var yi ng per c en tag e bas is (dep en d ing on ap p li cab le discou nt s) for orders abov e the draw. S tar ti ng atm onth s ev en , i fa sal es re pres e n t a t i v e ’ s c o mmi s s i o n s d i d n o tc o v er the mo n th l y d r a w, then the r epres entat i ve w ould incur a “ draw defi ci t” re cove rab l e byS tr yke r. The co m pensati on pl an al so i ncl ud ed bonuses f orm eet i ng o r exceedin g s al es quotas. The com pany expres sl y r ese rv ed the ri ght t o change the c om m i ssi on co m pensati on pl an atany ti m e. In20 06 an d 20 07, C ar ro ll’s s ale s t ot al ed les s t h an h alf of h is quot a. A s a result, for th e 2008 ca lend ar year, S try k erpl ac ed Car r o l lo n a “ per f o r m an ce i m provem en t pla n” thatr equi re d him to m eethi s y ear - to- date s al es quotas each quar ter or f ace ter m i nati on. On M ar ch 31

— th e last day o fthe fi rs t quar tero f20 08

— Ca r r o l l ’ s sa l esN o. 09

- 4111 5

w er e s till u n d er h is q u ar te rly qu ot a, b u t h e h ad a sa le in p rogr ess with Au ro ra H eal th Care ( “A uror a”) that m i ght a l l ow him to m eethi s q u ot a and sa ve hi s j ob. That day Car ro l lem ai l ed an Au ro ra purchase o rd er to h is s u p er vis or in t h e a m ou n t o f $2 99 ,00 8.1 3. St r y k er d id not acce p t th i s o rder, however
. A uror a had pro posed s ub s t a n t i a lmo d i fi c a t i o n s t o S t r y k e r ’ s s t a n d a r d t e r ms and condit i ons, m osto fwh i ch w er e un acceptabl e t o St ry ker
. In part i cul ar, A uror a dem and ed 1 20 days t o pay, wh i l e S tr yke r nor m al l y r equi re d paym ent t o be m ade withi n 30 days. A l so, S tr yke r’ s fi nance depart

m en t ha d a dvi se d Auro r a th ati t woul d h ave to si g n a fi na nc in g a greem en t to obtain fi na nc ing for th e orde r. W hen pres ented with thi s r equi re m ent, A u ro ra r efused
. Stryker offered a com p rom ise, bu t A urora ba l k ed ag ain. In th e m ea nt i m e Car r o l l ’ s su per vi so re xtended hi s deadli ne f or m aking hi s quarte rly quota fro m M ar ch 31 to A pri l1. W h en it becam e cl earthat Au r o r a w o u l d n o tc o mp l e t e th e t r a n s a c t i o n o n t e r ms th at w er e a c c ep ta b le t o St ry ke r, Str yk er in f o rm ed C ar ro ll th at he had not m et his qu ota as req uired by his pe rform a n c e im p ro ve m en t p lan . H is e m p loy m en t w as te rm inated o n A pri l2. A fterhi s t er m i nati on Car rol las ked S tr yke r to tr eat th e A urora d eal as a “cont ingen t orde r”

— a t er m f oran uno ffi ci alo r dertha t woul d l i k ely b e fi na l i ze d o n a tim ely ba sis

— so th at h e c ou l d m ee t h is q u ot a, sa ve h is j ob, a nd receive a com m issi on. Con tingen t orde rs w ere gener al l y no t per m i tte d, al though s al es re prese ntati ves w ho w ere not on perf o r m a n ce im p rovem en t plan s w ere som etim es given cr e d it f or cont ingen t orde rs tow ard6 N o. 09

- 4111 th e end of th e year. B ecau se C a r rollw as on a perf or m ance i m prove m ent pl an, S tr yke r decl i ned to treat th e A urora tran sact ion as a con tingen t orde r. Lat eri n Apr i l2 00 8, S try k err esu m ed ne g o ti at i o ns w i th A uror a thro ugh the sal es re prese ntati ve w ho r epla ced Carr ol l, but A uror a m aintai ned i ts re fusalto sign a fi nanci ng ag re em ent. S tr yke r eve ntuall y a rr anged f or fi na nc i ngo n t er m s th at p ut i ts el fo n the ho o kt o the fi nanci ng co m pany i fA uror a fa i l ed to pay. S tr yke r acce pte d Auro r a’ s p urc hase o r dero n Apr i l3 0, 2 00 8, a nd cr edi te d Ca r r o l l ’ s r epl ac ementwi ththe c o m m i ss i o n. Carr ol lsued S tr yke r i n W i sco nsi n st at e co urt f or u n p aid w ag es u n d er se c tio n 1 09 .03 of th e W isc on sin St at u te s a n d als o a ss er te d cla im s f o r qu an tu m m er u it and unj ust e nri chm ent. Carr ol l ’ s co m pla i nt sought a l i tt l e o ve r$ 67, 00 0 i n da m ag es ( th e co m m i ss ion on the Aur o r a de a lp l us a 5 0 % c i v i lp e na l t y a utho r i z e d by W IS . S T AT . § 1 0 9
. 1 1 ) i n a d d i t i o n t o “ c o s t s , d i s b u r s e me n t s , a nd att or ne y’s fees. ” S tr yke r re m ove d the ca se to federa l dist ri ct c ourt
. In the noti ce o fr em ova l, S tr yke r ass erted that the $ 75, 000 thre shol d fo r dive rs i ty j uris dict i on was sa ti sfi ed bythe s ta tu to r y da m ag es ( th e co m m issi o n +the 50% pen alty = $67,276.83) p lus an aw ard of att o rney ’s fees al so avai l abl e byst atute ( a dem and l ett erfro m Carr ol l ’ s co unselpegg ed prefi l i ng at torn ey’ s fees at $19, 105) . T h e d ock eting she et acco m panyi ng the not i ce ofr em ova lst ate d that t h e com pla i nt dem anded “$ 67,27 6.8 3, p lu s a tt or n ey ’s fe es .” Inits an sw er , ho w ev er , S tr yk er as se rt ed th at C ar ro ll co ul d no t r ec o ve rund er s ec ti o n 1 09
. 03 b ec au se theN o. 09

- 4111 7 sta tute by i ts ter m s doe s no t a pp l y t o com m i ssi oned sal es re prese ntati ves. S tr yke r ass er ted thatCarr ol lwas i nfo rm ed ofth is by l ett erfro m the Eq ual Ri ghts Divi si on o fthe W i sco nsi n Departm ent o fW or kf or ce Dev el o pm en t be f o r e he fi l ed hi s su i t i n s ta te cour t. The l et terpoi nted Carr ol lto an a l ternati ve sta tutory c ause of acti on: one und erse cti on 1 34. 93 ofthe W i sco nsi n St atute s, w hi ch go ver ns wage di sputes forc om m i ssi oned sa l es r epr es en ta ti ve s. Af te rS try k er ’s a ns werwas fi l ed, the m ag ist ra te j u d ge , pr es id in g b y c on se n t o f th e p ar tie s, see 28 U
. S. C. § 6 36 ( c) ( 1) , he l d a s ch edu l i ngc o nfer en ce a nd s e t a d ea d lin e fo r am en d in g t h e p lea d in gs , w h ich C ar ro ll l e tp a s s wi t ho uts e e k i n gl e a v e t o fi l e a n a me n d e d c o mpla i nt. S try k erl at ermove d f o rs um m ary j udg m en t, r ei te r at i ng i ts de fen se that sect i on 1 09. 03 did notapplyto co m m i ssi o ne d s al es r epr es en ta ti ve s. In a ddi ti o n, S try k erc o ntended that Carr ol l ’ s e quit abl e cl ai m s co u ld n ot proceed be cause the 2 008 com pensati on pl an co nsti tuted ane xpr es s co nt r ac t r eg ar di ngCa r r oll ’ s co m pen sa ti o n. Carr ol lr esponded by withd ra w i ng hi s s tatutor y wage c l a i m a nd l a t e rmo v i ngt o a m end hi s c o mpl a i ntt o a dd a cl ai m f orbr each o fco ntra ct. The m agi str ate j ud ge g r an te d S try k er ’ s m o ti o n f o rs um m ary j udg m en t, ho l di ng that equi tabl e co ntra ct r em edi es w er e unavai l abl e in l i g h to fth e e x p r e s s c o n t r a c tg o v e r n i n gC a r r o l l ’ s c o mpen sa ti o n. The j udg e al so de ni ed l ea ve t o a m en d the c om p lain t, ex p lain in g t h at C ar ro ll ha d d e l a y ed w ell be y o nd th e dea dl i ne f o r amending th e pl ea dings and had not s how n go od ca u se f orwait i ng so l ong to see k l e a v e t o a men d.8 N o. 09

- 4111

I n M er i di an S ec uri ty Insur anceC o. v. Sado w sk i, 441 F. 3d 536, 539- 1 40 ( 7th C ir. 20 06 ), w e retr a c t e d l an g u ag e in p rev iou s op inio ns, begi nni ng wi th Shaw v. Dow Brands , Inc. , 994 F. 2d 364, 366 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93 ) , s ugge s t i ng thatthe pr opone ntofj ur i s di c t i on m us t“pr ove ” t o a “rea sonabl e pro babi l i t y” thatj ur i s di c t i on exists. I I . Discussi on A . J uri sdict i on A lthou gh neith er the p arties nor th e d istri ct cou rt add re sse d subj ect- m att er j uri sdic ti on, we have a n i nd epend ent obl i gat i on t o sat i sfy o urse l ves that j uri sdic ti on is s ec u r e b e for e p ro c ee d in g t o th e m er its
. S mi t h v . A m. G en . L i f e & A ccid ent In s. C o ., 337 F.3d 888 , 892 (7th C ir. 20 03 ); s e ealso M cNuttv. Ge n. M ot ors Acc ept anc eCorp. , 29 8 U
. S. 17 8, 189 (1 93 6). A t o ra lar gum ent we as ked wh ether i t was cl earthatthe $75, 000 am ount- i n-c ontr ove rs y r equir em ent fordi ve rs i ty j uri sdic ti on was m et, see 28 U
. S. C. § 1 332( a) , and or dered the part i es to fi l e s up ple

m en ta l b r i efs on th e m at te r. N otsu rp ris in gly , C ar ro ll a r g u e d a g a i n s tfe d e r a lj u r i s d i c t i o n, w h i l e S t r y k e rs u pport ed i t. A s the par ty re m oving the c ase to federa lco urt, S try k erha d the i ni ti albur denofe st ab l i sh i ngb y a pr epo nderance of the evi dence f acts that sugge st th e j uri sdi c t i o na la mou ntha s b e e n s a t i s fi e d. O shana v. C oca-C ola 1 Co. , 4 7 2 F
. 3 d 5 06 , 5 1 1 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 )
. On c e i th a s ma de th is s h ow in g, ju r i sd ict ion w ill be d efe at ed on ly if it ap p ea rs to a leg al c er ta in ty th at th e s ta ke s o fth e la w su it d o n otex c ee d $7 5,0 00
. B a ckD o cto rs Ltd . v . M etro. P rop . &N o. 09

- 4111 9 C a s. C o ., Inc ., 637 F. 3d 827, 83 0 ( 7th C ir. 20 11) ( “[ T] h e e s t i ma t e o fth e d i s p u t e ’ s s t a k e s a d v a n c e d b y t he proponent offeder alj uri sdic ti on co ntro l s unl ess a re c ov er y th at larg e is lega lly im p os s i b l e.” ); R ising -M o o re v. Re d R o o

f Inns, Inc . , 435 F.3d 813, 815-16 (7th Cir. 2006); s e eal s o S t
. Paul M e r cu ry Inde m . Co. v. Re d Cab Co. , 30 3 U. S
. 2 83 , 2 89 ( 19 38 )
. The am ou nt i n c o nt r o ve r syi s ev aluat ed as of th e t im e o f rem ov al, O s hana , 472 F. 3d at 51 1, al though e vents subse quent to r em ova lm ay c l ar i fy what th e p l a i nt i ffwa s a c t ua l l y s e e k i ngwh e n the c a s e was r e mov e d, R ising -M o o re, 43 5 F
. 3d at 816; BEM I , L. L.C. v. A nthropologie, Inc. , 301 F.3d 548 , 552 (7th C ir. 2002). I fCarr ol l ’ s dam age s were m eas ured byr eference to the stat uto ryc l ai m a l o ne , the “ l eg alc ertai nty ” te stmight ki ck i n to defeatj uri sdic ti on. A s the W i sco nsi n Departm en t o f W or kfo rc e D ev elo p m en t in for m e d b ot h C ar ro ll a nd S t r y k e rb e f o r e the s ui twa s fi l e d, s e c t i o n 1 09. 03, W i sco nsi n’s wage- cl ai m st atute , was am ended in 2003 to sp ecifi cally ex clud e com m issi one d salesp erson s. So Carr ol l w as not a proper cl ai m ant und er that st at u te and coul d not r ece ive i ts enhanced re cove ryo fa 50% p en alt y a n d a t t or n ey ’s fe es . Th e D ep ar tm en t t old C ar ro ll that he co uld pot enti al l y fi l e s uitunde r sect i on 134. 93, w hi ch pro vi des a sta tutory c ause of a c tion to re cove r paym ent o fco m m i ssi ons owed to i nd epe nd ent s al es re prese ntati ves and ap pli es to any s al es re prese ntati ve “w ho i s co m p en sa ted, i n w hol e o r i n part, byco m m i ssi on. ” W IS . S T AT . § 134.93(1)(b). The l eg al

- ce r ta i nty t es t se ts the b arhi g h fo re xc l udi ng fede r als ubj ec t- m at te rj uri sdi ct i o n, a nd f o rg o o d r ea so n:10 N o. 09

- 4111 D i s t r i c tc o u r t s s h o u l d n o t ge tb o g g e d d o wna tth e t i me o f r emov al i n ev alua ting cl ai m s o n th e m er i ts to d eterm i ne i fj uri sdic ti on e x ist s. See R ising -M o o re, 43 5 F
. 3d at 816. N onethel ess , r em ova li s obviou sly i m properi fj uri sd ict ion n ev er ex ist ed in t h e firs t p lac e. Se eCunn i ngh am Char t e rC o rp. v. Le ar

j e t, Inc . , 592 F.3d 805, 807 (7th Cir. 2010 )
. Counti ng the st atuto rydam age s

— i nc l udi ngthe 50% penal ty and atto rney ’ s fees

— t o wa r d the j ur i sdic

ti onalam ount wh en the s ta tu te by i ts ter m s doe s no t ap p ly w ou ld rest j urisd iction on a form of recove ry that w as l ega l l y i m possibl e. True, thi s ca se does not i n v o l v e a s t a t u t o r y o r c o n t r a c t u a lc a p o n d a mage s

— com m on e xam ple s o fcl ai m s th at are consi dered “l ega l l y i m p ossibl e” f orj uri sdic ti onalpurposes . See Jo hn son v. Wa ttenba rger, 361 F. 3d 991, 994 ( 7th C ir. 2 0 0 4). Bu t fro m the f ace ofthe sta tute and C ar ro l l ’ s co m pla i nt, i t was cl earfro m t he be gi nning that as a s al es re prese ntati ve w ho work ed on co m m i ssi on, he cou ld n ot re cove r und erse cti on 1 09. 03. B u t st atu tory d am ages are n ot the sole m easu re o fth e a mo u n t i n c o n t r o v e r s y i n th i s c a s e . T h e c o mpla i nt al so d em ands “w age s a nd o therco m pensati on and benefi ts” as g ener alco m pensato rydam age s under th e equi tabl e co nt r ac t do ct rines o fqua ntum mer ui t an d unj ust e nri chm ent. In i ts supp l em en tal bri efi n thi s co urt, S try k ers uppl i ed ev i den ce o fCa r r o l l ’ s damag es de m an d und erthes e doct rines. Fi rs t, S tr yke r p oi nted to a l ett er fro m Carr ol l ’ s co unselse nt be f or e the st ate
- cour t su it w as i ni ti ate d
. In i t Car ro l ldem anded $4 1, 122. 35 i n l ost com m i ssi ons, n in e m onths ofdraw i n the am ount o f $54,000, and prefil ing attorn ey’s fees of$19 ,105 , f or aN o. 09

- 4111 11

Eve n tho ug h s e t t l e m e nto ffe r s are i na dm i s s ibl e t o pr ov e 2 li abili ty und er Rule 408 ofthe F ed er a l R ules ofEv idence, the y ar e adm i s s ibl e t o s how thatthe am ounti n c ont ro v ersy f or j uris dicti onal purp oses has been m et. S ee R isi n g-M oore v. R ed Roo f Inns , Inc . , 435 F. 3d 813, 816 (7th Cir. 2006) ( holding that “th e w illing ne ss to accep t $60 ,0 0 0 [ in a settlem en t] sup p or ts a concl usi on that the ‘ controvers y’ ex cee ds $75, 000”)
. total of $114 , 227.35 in d am ages. M inu s the attorn ey’s fees , Carr ol l ’ s dam age s dem and tot al ed $95 , 122. 35. M or eo ve r, Ca r r o l lt esti fi ed i n de po si ti o n tha t he was s ee k i ng $50, 000 to $60, 000 i n com m i ssi on s, $200 , 000 to $300 , 000 i n l ostsa l ar y ( presum abl y future sal ar y in the f orm o f co m m i ssi ons ) , a 1 0% bo nus , a 4 01 K di st r ibut i o n, a nd $15, 000 to $20, 000 i n att or ney’ s fees . Fi nal l y, d u rin g the pendency o fthe case i n federa l cour t, Carr ol l ’ s co unselse nt a set tlem ent o fferto St ry ker ’ s cou n se lbyem ai lst ating tha t Car ro l lhad re du ced hi s dem and fro m an ear l i erfi gure o f“$ 100, 000 or m or e” an d w ou ld n o w se tt le for $6 0,0 00 p lu s c er ta in nonm onet ar y r el i ef
. W e a l so note thatthe parti es 2 ag re ed in t h eir p ro p os ed f i n d in gs of fac t t h at C ar ro ll w as see ki ng $2 00 ,00 0 t o $300 , 000 i n l ostwages a nd that the j uri sdic ti onalam ount had bee n m et
. W hi l e l i ti gants cannot cre ate fed er al j uri sdic ti on wh er e no ne exi sts , w e t ake thi s a gr ee m ent a s furtherpro ofthatthe sta kes of th e s u it e x c ee d ed th e $ 75 ,00 0 jur isd ict ion al t h re sh old at th e t im e o f rem ov al. This evi dence is enough t o est abl i sh thatthe j uri sdic

ti onalam ount has bee n sa ti sfi ed. In hi s s up ple m ental12 N o. 09

- 4111 bri efar gui ng ag ai nst j uri sdic ti on, Carr ol lco ncentr ate s so l ely o n th e su bj ec t o f st atut o r y damag es , i g no r i ng the abundant evi d en c e th at the s tak es ofthe sui t e xceeded the j uri sdic ti onalthr esho l d w hen j ust t he co m m on- l aw cl ai m s a re co nsi dered. W e co nclu d e th at St ry kerhas sh ow n m o re th an th e “ th eo re tic al a va ilab ility of ce rt ain cate gor i es ofdam age s, ” M cM il li an v. Sherat on C hi. Hotel & To w ers , 56 7 F
. 3d 839, 84 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( quotati on m ar k s om itted) ; i t ha s es tabl i sh ed th at“ whatthe pl ainti ffhopes to geto ut o fthe l i ti gat i on, ” Ris i ng-M oore , 435 F. 3d at 816, was w el lo ver$7 5,0 00. S ubj ect- m att erj uri sdict i on i s s ecure, rem ova lwas proper, and w e pr oce ed to the m er i ts.

B. Qu asi - cont r act ual R em edie s W e review de novo a d istri ct cou rt’s grant of su m m ary j ud gm ent, co nstr u in g a l lf acts and re aso nabl e infe re nces infav or of th e n on m ov in g p ar ty
. M usch v. D o m ta r Ind us., Inc . , 58 7 F
. 3d 857, 85 9 ( 7th Ci r. 200 9)
. S tr yke r ar gues th atunde rW i sc o ns i n l aw Ca r r o l lc anno t i nv o k e th e equi tabl e re m edi es o fqua ntum mer ui t an d unj us t en ri chm ent in l i ght o fthe parti es’ expre ss contr act r e g a r di ngc o mpe ns a t i o n. Ca r r o l lr e s po nd s tha tthe 2 0 08 com pensati on pl an l aying ou t Str yke r’ s co m m i ssi on str ucture did notam ount t o an expre ss c on tr act because he d id n o t sign i t, Stryker reserved the right to m od ify i t, and the re cei pt f orthe em plo yee handbo ok di scl ai m ed the exi ste nce o fa contr act. I n W i sc o ns i n the quas i

- co nt r ac tu althe o r i es o fqua ntum m er uitand unj ust e n richm ent a re l ega lcause s o fact i onN o. 09

- 4111 13 gr ounded i n equi tabl e pr in ci ple s a nd can be invoke d onl y in the abse nce of an enf or ceabl e co ntra ct. See Lin dq uist Fo rd, Inc. v. M idd leto n M o to rs, Inc ., 557 F.3 d 4 69, 47 6 ( 7th C ir. 2009); M eye r v. LaserVisi on Inst
. , 71 4 N
. W
. 2d 223, 23 0 ( W i s. Ct. A pp . 20 06) ( equi tabl e cl ai m s ba rr ed by expre ss con tract); Gr e e nl e ev. Rai nb ow A uc t i on/Real ty Co. , 55 3 N
. W
. 2d 257, 26 5 ( W i s. Ct. A pp . 199 6) (doctr i ne o funj ust enr i c hme ntdo e s n o ta pp l y wh e r e p a r t i e s h a v e e nt e re d in t o a va lid co n tr ac t). W h er e t h er e is an en for c ea b le co nt r ac t, th e pr o per cl ai m i s f o r br ea ch o f co nt r ac t; qu antu m m er u it a n d u nj u st en ric h m en t a re u n av aila b le. See Lin dq uist F o rd, 55 7 F .3d at47 6; G o rt o n v . Hostak, Henzl & Bi c hl e r, S
. C. , 577 N
. W
. 2d 6 1 7, 624 n.13 (W is. 1998); Sc hu ltz v. A nd rus’ E stat e, 190 N
. W
. 83, 84 (W is. 19 22) (“W he re a v ali d , exp ress con tract is prov en, no recove ry can be had on a n i m pli ed contr act .”). C ar ro l li nsi sts that ther e was no express co ntra ct b etween the parti es. W e h av e litt le t ro u b le rej ec tin g t h is a rg u m en t. It is undi spu te d tha t Car r o l lwas a n a t- wi l le m pl o y ee ; he had no em plo ym ent c ontr act. U nd er em plo ym ent a t w i l l, the “em plo yerm ay disc harg e an e m p l oye e for go od ca u se , for n o c au se , or ev en for c au se m o r ally w ro ng, witho ut being the re by gui l ty ofl ega lwrong. ” Tatge v. C ha m bers & O w en, Inc., 579 N
. W
. 2d 21 7, 22 2- 23 ( W i s. 19 98 ) ( i nt erna lquo ta ti o n mar k s o m i tt ed)
. Tho ug h h e co ul d b e di sc ha r g ed atwi l l, hi s c om pen sa ti o n was the subj ect ofan e xpress contr act. The 20 08 com pensati on p lan sp elle d o u t in d etail th e pa y struc tu re forStryker’s c om m iss ion -b as ed sa les rep re s en ta tiv es . SeePiaskoski & Ass oc s . v. Ri cc i ar di, 6 8 6 N. W
. 2 d 6 7 5 , 6 7 9 ( W i s . Ct
. App
. 20 04 ) ( l i st i ngthe thr ee b asi c r equi r ement s f o ra c o n-14 N o. 09

- 4111 tr ac t: offe r, ac c ep ta n c e, an d co n sid er at ion ); Pet e rs e n v . P ilgrim Vill
. , 42 N
. W
. 2d 273, 274 ( W i s. 19 50) ( “A n offer m ust be so defi ni te i n i ts t er m s, orr equi re such defi ni te term s in the ac cep tan ce, that th e prom ises and perform ances to be r endered byea ch party a re r eas onably c er ta in .” (q u ot at ion m ar ks om itt ed )). Th e p ar tie s m an ifest ed thei r conse nt t o be b ound by the co m pensati on pl anwhenCa r ro l lc o nt i nue d t o wor kf o rthe c o m pan y afterr ecei vi ng i t, and St ry kerpaid h im in a ccor dance w ith its te rm s u n til h e w as te rm in at ed
. Ric ci ar di, 68 6 N
. W
. 2d at 679 ( hol ding that “[ o] fferand acce ptance ex ist w h en th e pa rt ies m u tu ally ex p re ss as se n t ” ) . T h is ex ch an ge of services for p ay also sup p li ed the con side rat i o n. See Wis. D ep’t o f R even ue v . Riv er C ityR efuse R em o v a l, Inc. , 7 29 N. W
. 2d 39 6, 4 08 ( W i s. 2 00 7) ( defi ni ng con side ration as either a b e n e fi t to the p rom isor or a d etrim en t to the p rom isee). That Carr ol l did not si gn the pla n doesn’ t m ean it’s n ot a contr act. Carr ol l accepte d the 2008 com pensa tio n pl an by perf or m i ng und er i ts ter m s, and the l ack of his signature does n ot d efea t thi s a cceptance byper f or m ance. Se eChudn ow Cons t r . Corp. v. Com m e r ci a l D i s c. Corp. , 180 N
. W
. 2d 697, 69 8 ( W i s. 19 70 ) ( expla i ni ng tha t a contr act m ay be e ffecti ve eve n t h ou gh i t i s no t s i gned by parti es)
. N ori s the co ntra ct i l l usor y b ecause St ry kerr ese rv ed th e rig h t t o change the t er m s o fpaym en t i n the futur e. A pr o m i se i s i ll us ory a nd thus une nf o r ce ab l e o nl y wher e o ne pa r ty“ass um es no de tr i m en t o ro bl i g at i o n” a nd the r efo r e ha s g i ve n n o c o ns i der at i o n. D evin e v. No tter, 7 53 N
. W
. 2d 557, 559 (W is. Ct
. A p p . 2008). H er e, S t r y ke r u n d er to ok an ob liga tio n to p ay C ar ro llN o. 09

- 4111 15 i n acco rdance w i th the t er m s o fthe com pensati on pl an as lo n g as the pl an was i n f or ce. A co ntra ct c an be m od ified by fu t u re ag re em en t, s e eLa ke s horeCom m e r ci al Fi n. Corp. v. D r ob ac, 3 19 N. W
. 2d 83 9, 8 45 (W is. 1 98 2) , a nd St ry ker ’ s r ese rv ati on of t he r i ght t o m odi fy the pay pl a n d o e s n o tma k e th i s a n i l l u s o r y c o n t r a c t
. The com p an y agreed to p ay for services perform ed in a c c ordan ce wi ththe c o m pen sa ti o n pl an ’ s term s whi l e th e pl a n wa s i n e ffe c t
. I f S t r y k e r ha d e xe r c i s e d i t s r i g ht to m odi fy the co m m i ssi on s tr ucture, Carr ol lwould have ha d a n o ppo r tu ni tyt o acce pt th e ne w te r m s byc o nti nuing to w or k forthe com pany. F i na l l y, we r ej e c tCa r r o l l ’ s a r g ume nttha tthe r e c e i pt he signed w hen he a ccepted a copy o fthe em plo yee hand boo k di scl ai m ed the exi ste nce ofany contr act be twe enthe pa r ti es . Ca r roll i s m i sr ea di ngb o ththe re c eip t a n d th e e m p lo y e e h an d b oo k. T h e re c eip t s im p ly ackno w l edg ed thatthe hand boo k was m eant “to i nf o r m me o fthe Co m pan y ’ s po l i ci es a nd r ul es , ” an d cauti oned that “nothing conta i ned i n the Hand boo k co ns ti tu tes a n e m pl o y m en t co nt r ac t” a nd “ an y pr ev i o us c on tr ac ts , po licie s, or rep re se n ta tio n s . . . are n o lon ge r in effec t an d hav e be enr epl ac ed bythe Handb o o k
. ” The re cei pt w as thus a str ai ghtfo rward acknow l edgm ent o f th e ha ndbo o k ’ s pur po se : I t w as no t ane m pl o y m en t contr act b u t ra th era sta tem ent o fthe com pany’s workp lac e p olic ies an d p ra c tic e s . B y a ll ac c ou n ts n ot h in g in the rec e i pto rthe h a nd b o o ks he ds a nyl i g hto n whe ther the c om pensati on pl an i s an e n f or ceabl e co ntra ct; nei therthe re cei pt n orthe hand boo k i tse l fspeci fi es payme n ts c h e d u l e s f o rS t r y k e r ’ s c o mmi s s i o n-b a s e d e m-16 N o. 09

- 4111

W hil e the parti es did not incl ud e a c opy ofthe em ployee 3 hand boo k in the re cord, no one has suggest ed that itcontai ned s pe c i fi c s a l a r y s c he du l e s f ora ny o fS t r yk e r ’ s e m pl oy e e s . At or a l a rgum en tCa r r ol l ’ s c ou ns e l a c kn owl e dg e d tha ti tpr ob

ab ly d id no t. plo yee s. A ccor dingl y, we agr ee w i th the m agi str ate

3 j ud ge that St ry ker ’ s 2 008 com pensati on pl an co ns ti tutes an expre ss contr act and C ar ro l lm ay not re cove r und er the quasi

- contr actualdoctr i nes o fquantum m er uito r unj ust e nri chm ent.
C. De ni a l o fL e a v e t o Ame nd Co mpl a i nt W e r ev i ew a di stri ctc o ur t’ s den i alo fl ea ve t o a m en d t h e c om p lain t fo r ab u se of d isc re tio n an d “re ve rs e o n ly ifn o re as on ab le p er so n co u ld ag re e w ith th at d ec isio n .” Sc horv. Ci ty of

Chi cago , 576 F.3d 775 , 780 (7th C ir. 2009). The magi st r at e j udg e den i ed th e m o ti o n t o a m en d be ca us e Car r o l lha d n o goo d c au se f o rmis singthe dea dl i ne e st ab l i sh ed i n the s ch ed ul i ngo r dera nd the un d ue de lay prej ud iced Stryker. C arrollsough t leave t o am en d his com p lai nt m ore th ans ev en m o nths a fte rthe de adl i ne f o ra m en di ngthe ple ading s, l ess than a m onth be f or e di sco ver y was to c los e, an d ele ve n d ay s a fte r St ry ke r h a d filed its rep ly to Carr ol l ’ s o pp osi ti on t o i ts m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm en t. C arroll ’s coun sel ins ists that he d id not fully un d ersta nd S tr yke r’ s a rgu m en t that quasi

- contr actualcause s ofact i on were unavai l abl e unti lafterS tr yke r had fi l edN o. 09

- 4111 17 its reply briefi n su p p o r t of its m otion for su m m ary j ud gm ent. Thi s i s doubtful. S tr yke r had asse rt ed in i ts an sw er that qu an tu m m eru it and unj us t e nrich m en t w ere una va i l ab l e f o r m s o fr el i ef, s o Carrol lwas a l er te d t o the b a s i c p r o b l e m w i th th e s e c l a i ms

— an d the nee d fo r an am ended com pla i nt subst i tuti ng a bre ach- of

- contr act c laim

— at the o utseto fthe federa lpro ceedi ngs. Regar dle ss, i gnor ance i s har dlya val i d rea son f or m i ssing the deadl i ne byso m an y m onths; the f ai l ure to anti ci pate a n obv i ous a nd l egally w el l

- gr ounded defense do e s n o t e x c u s e th e d e l a y . Mo r e th a n a mo n th b e f o r e th e d ea d lin e fo r am en d in g t h e p lea d in gs , o u r d ec isio n in Lin dq uist M o to rs expl ai ned i n so m e deta i lthe conceptual an d r em ed ial d ist in c tio n s b et w ee n co n tr ac t a n d qu as ic o n t r a c t u a lc l a i ms u n d e rWi s c o n s i n l a w. 557 F. 3d at 476

- 81. A ccor dingl y, the m agi str ate j ud ge re aso nabl y deni ed Carr ol l ’ s m oti on f orl eave to am end base d on hi s l ack of goo d c ause f or m i ssing the deadli ne and th e p rej ud i ce to Str yk er of allo w in g a n a m en d ed co m p lain t s o lat e in th e d ay . See A lio to v. To w n o f Lisbo n, N o. 09

- 3921 , 20 11 W L 2 6423 69 , a t * 3 ( 7th Ci r . J ul y 7, 2 01 1) ( ex pl aini ngthe interp lay betw een the req uirem en t s of Ru le 15(a) pertainin g to am endm ents to ple ading s a nd Rule 16 ( b) ( 4) p e r t aining to m od ifications of sche d uling ord ers); Trustm a rk In s. C o . v. Gen
. & C o logn e Life R e of A m ., 424 F. 3d 542, 553 (7th C ir. 2005) (sam e). A FFI RMED .

9- 6- 11