# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 33 02

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Med tro ni c So fam or

Dane k, In c.; M ed tro ni c So fam or Dane k USA, In c.; M ed tro ni c,

In c.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll ees

v.

Pat ric k B . Gann on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Octo be r 16 , 20 18 Fi le d: Jan ua ry

9, 2 01 9

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , LOKE N and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Pat ric k G a nn on ap pe al s th e gr an t of a m ot io n to rem an d fil ed by hi s fo rm er

em pl oyer, Med tro ni c So fam or Da ne k, In c. , Me dt ro ni c So fam or Dan ek USA, In c., an dM e d t r on ic
, In c. (co ll ect iv el y , “ Med tro ni c”). The di st ric t co ur t he ld th at Gan n o n 1
waiv ed hi s rig ht to rem ov e th e cas e to fed eral co ur t be cau se th e em pl oym en t co nt ract he si gn ed co nt ai ne d a n e nf or ceab le for um

sel ect io n c la us e. W e aff irm.

I.

On March 2, 20 15
, Gan no n s ig ne d a n Off er Let te r, an Em

pl oyee Agr eem en t,

an d a Rep ay m en t Agr eem en t. He do es no t di sp ut e th at he si gn ed th es e do cu m en ts at th e sa m e ti m e to for m

an em pl oym en t re la ti on sh ip wit h M ed tro ni c.

The Offer Lett er is a “ fo rm al of fer of em pl oym en t at Med tro ni c.” By si gn in g it
, Gan no n “ ACCEPT[ED] THIS OFFE R OF EMPLOYMENT” an d ag reed to th e
te rm s se t fo rth in it

. The Offer Lett er in cl ud es ba si c in fo rm at io n ab ou t G a nn on ’s

em pl oym en t, in cl ud in g hi s st art da te , co m pe ns at io n st ru ct ur e, va cat io n ti m e, a nd

tra in in g. It is al s o e x p r e s sl y “ co nt in ge nt up on [Gan no n] si gn in g th e at ta ch ed
Em pl oyee Agre em en t an d t he Sal es Guar an te e Rep ay m en t Ag reem en t.”

The Em pl oyee Agr eem en t de al s wit h th in gs li ke co nf id en ti al it y , pr op rie ta ry in ve nt io ns , an d res tri ct io ns on co m pe ti ti on

. It al so in cl ud es a fo ru m se le ct io n cl au se

. Tha t cl au se sa y s th at di sp ut es “ ari si ng ou t o f or rel at ed to th is Agr eem en t” m us t be
li ti ga te d in Mi nn es ot a st at e co ur t an d th at Gan no n “irrev oc ab ly co ns en ts to th e
pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on of th e st at e co ur ts in th e St at e of Mi nn es ot a fo r th e pu rp os es of

an y act io n ari si n g ou t of or rel at ed to th is Agr eem en t.” The Em pl oyee Agr eem en t do es no t ad dr es s “ co m

pe ns at io n, be ne fit s, an d ot he r fin an ci al te rm s an d co nd it io ns ,”
whi ch it sa y s are “ se t fo rth in se pa rat e do cu m en ts pr ov id ed to [Gan no n].” In a se ct io n

en ti tl ed “ Pri or Agr eem en ts ,” th e Em pl oyee Agr eem en t sa y s th at no th in g in it “ affe ct s

an y te rm or pr ov is i on of an y MEDTRONIC co m pe ns at io n or be ne fit pl an or an y
ag reem en ts rel at ed th eret o.”

The Hon or ab le Su sa n Ri ch ard Nels on , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e f o r th e 1 Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.
-2

-The on e-p ag e Rep ay m en t Agr eem en t st at es th at Med tro ni c an d Gan no n “ wis h

to en te r in to an

. . . em

pl oym en t rel at io n s h ip .” Med tro ni c ag reed to pa y Gan no n $9 0 0
, 0 0 0 ov er a th ree- y ear “ Gua ran te e Peri od ,” bu t “ if [Gan no n] vo lu nt ari ly

te rm in at es fro m Med tro ni c du rin g th e Gua ran te e Peri od or wit hi n on e y ear aft er th e

en d of th e Gua ran te e Peri od
, [h e] m us t pa y b a c k to Med tro ni c th e di ffer en ce be twee n” h i s e arn ed co m m is si on s an d pa y m en ts rece iv ed

. The Offer Lett er al so de sc rib es th e Gua ran te e Peri od an d su m m ari zes t h e c on di ti on of rep ay m en t sh ou ld
G a n n on te rm in at e hi s em pl oym en t du rin g th is pe rio d. The Rep ay m en t Agr eem en t do es no t i nc lu de a fo ru m

sel ect io n c la us e.

In la te 20 16
, Gan no n left Med tro ni c. Med tro ni c su ed hi m in Mi nn es ot a st at e

co ur t, al le gi ng th at he le ft du rin g th e Gua ran te e Peri od an d fai le d to rep ay Med tro ni c
pu rs ua nt to th e Rep ay m en t Agr eem en t. Gan no n rem ov ed th e act io n to fed eral co ur t

un de r 28 U.S.C. § 13 32 (a)( 1)
, an d Med tro ni c m ov ed to rem an d pu rs ua nt to th e fo ru m

se le ct io n cl au se in th e Em pl oyee Agr eem en t. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Med tro ni c’s

m ot io n, ho ld in g th at th e fo ru m se le ct io n cl au se in th e Em pl oyee Agr eem en t ap pl ie d

to act io ns ari si ng fro m th e Rep aymen t A g r eem en t be cau se , un de r Mi nn es ot a la w, bo th ag reem en ts were di ffer en t pa rts of th e sa m e co nt ract

. It a l s o d e t e r mi ne d th at Med tro ni c’s su it was “ rel at ed to ” th e Em pl oyee Agr eem en t and th eref or e su bjec t to it s fo ru m sel ect io n c la us e. Gann on ap pe al s.

II

.

W e rev ie w a di st ri c t co ur t’s gr an t of a m ot io n to rem an d de no vo

. Se e Fal te rme ie r v. FCA US LLC , 89 9 F .3d 61 7, 6 20 (8t h C ir. 2 01 8) . “ Und er 28 U.S.C. § 14 46
, a de fen da nt m ay rem ov e a cas e fil ed in st at e co ur t to fed eral co ur t bas ed on di ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on .” PR Gro up , LLC v. W in dmi ll In te rn ., Lt d.
, 79 2 F.3 d 10 25
, 10 26 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). Thi s rig ht to rem ov e m ay be waiv ed by ag reem en t. Id

. “ Su ch
waiv er m us t b e cl ear a nd un eq ui vo cal .” Id.

The pa rti es do no t d is pu te th at Mi nn es ot a la w app li es to th e in te rp ret at io n o f
th e Em pl oyee Agr eem en t, Rep ay m en t Agr eem en t, an d Offer Lett er. The y al so do no t

-3

-di sp ut e th at th e fo ru m se le ct io n cl au se in th e Em pl oyee Agr eeme n t i s cl ear an d

un eq ui vo cal

. Bu t th ey di sa gr ee ab ou t whe th er th e fo ru m se le ct io n cl au se ap pl ie s to th e pr es en t di sp ut e, whi ch ari se s fro m th e Rep ay m en t Agr eem en t. Gan no n arg ue s th at th e fo ru m se le ct io n cl au se do es no t ap pl y to th e Rep ay m en t Agr eem en t be cau se it is a se pa rat e co nt ract fro m th e Em pl oyee Agr eem en t. Bu t ev en if th ey are pa rts of
th e sa m e co nt ract , he cl ai m s th at la ng ua ge in th e Em pl oyee A g r e e m en t pr ecl ud es
ap pl ic at io n o f it s fo ru m

sel ect io n c la us e to th e Rep ay m en t Ag reem en t.

A.

As an in it ia l m at te r, Gan no n as se rts th at a pa rty m ay waiv e it s rig ht to rem ov e

an act io n fo r br each of c o nt ract on ly if th e co nt ract fro m whi ch th e act io n aro se

co nt ai ns a cl ear an d un eq ui vo cal fo ru m se le ct io n cl au se

. Se e, e.g

. , Ci t y o f N e w Orl ea ns v. Mun ic ip al Admi n. Se rv s. , 37 6 F

. 3 d 5 0 1
, 50 4 (5 th Ci r. 20 04 ); Bri st er v. Roma no ws ki
, No. 14 -2 92 1, 20 15 WL 2 0 9 0 2 36
, at *2 (E.D. La. Apr

. 30
, 20 15 ).
Mai nt ai ni ng th at th e Em

pl oyee Agre em en t an d Rep ay m en t Agr eem en t ar e se pa rat e

co nt ract s, Gan no n co nc lu de s th at he di d no t waiv e hi s rig ht to rem ov e b ecau se th is

act io n aro se fro m th e Rep ay m en t Agr eem en t, a co nt ract th at do es no t co nt ai n a fo ru m

se le ct io n c la us e.

Bu t th e Em

pl oym en t Agr eem en t an d Rep ay m en t Ag reem en t ar e n ot se pa rat e

co nt ract s. Und er Mi nn es ot a la w, “ in st ru m en ts ex ecu te d at th e sa m e ti m e, fo r th e

sa m e pu rp os e, an d in th e co u r s e o f t h e sa m e tra ns act io n are, in th e ey es of th e la w,

on e in s t r u men t a nd wil l be read an d co ns tru ed to ge th er un le ss th e pa rti es st ip ul at e
ot he rwis e.” Mar

so v. Man ka to Cl in ic

, Lt d.
, 15 3 N.W .2d 28 1, 28 8- 89 (Mi nn

. 19 67 ).

“ W he th er se pa rat e do cu m en ts ex ecu te d si m ul ta ne ou sl y sh ou ld be tre at ed as a si ng le

co nt ract is go ve rn ed by th e in te nt of th e pa rti es m an ife st ed at th e ti m e of co nt ract in g

an d vi ewed in li gh t of th e su rro un di ng ci rcu m st an ces .” Far re ll v. Jo hn so n , 44 2
N.W .2d 80 5, 8 07 (Mi nn . Ct. Ap p. 1 98 9)

.
The Em pl oyee Agr eem en t, Re p a ym en t Agr eem en t, an d Offer Lett er were

ex ecu te d si m

ul ta ne ou sl y , an d th e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng th ei r ex ecu ti on in di cat e

-4

-th at th ey sh ou ld be tre at ed as a si ng le co nt ract

. The Offer Lett er co ns ti tu te s a “ fo rm al

of fer of em pl oym en t” an d is co nt in ge nt up on Gan no n’s ex ecu ti on of th e Em pl oyee Agr eem en t an d R ep ay m en t Agr eem en t, st ro ng in di cat io ns th at al l th ree do cu m en ts

are par t o f th e sa m e tra ns act io n and were exec ut ed fo r th e sa m e pu rp os e of fo rm in g

an em pl oym en t rel at io ns hi p. Se e Bos to n Sc ie nt if ic Co rp

. v. Ki la nd
, No. 10 -4 05 3,
20 11 W L 30 35 08 8, at *3 (D. Mi nn

. Ju ly 25
, 20 11 ) (ap pl y in g Mi nn es o t a l a w an d
ho ld in g th at em

p l o ym en t-r el at ed ag reem en ts m us t be read to ge th er in pa rt be cau se

“ en te rin g in to bo th ag reem en ts w as a co nd it io n of gu aran te ed em pl oym en t an d

co m pe ns at io n” ). The Offer Lett er al so su m m ari zes th e k e y pr ov is io ns of th e Rep ay m en t Agr eem en t, an d th e Rep ay m en t A g r e em en t st at es th at “ [Gan no n] an d
Med tro ni c wis h to en te r in to an

. . . em pl oym en t rel at io ns hi p , ” whi ch
, as Gan no n

c o n ced es , was fo rm ed by hi s ex ecu ti on of al l th ree do cu m en ts

. The Rep ay m en t Agr eem en t i s t he refo re n ot a “ free -s ta nd in g c on tra ct ,” as he cla im s.

Gan no n al so co nt en ds t h a t t he Em pl oyee Agr eem en t an d Rep ay m en t Agr eem en t are se pa rat e co nt ract s be cau se th ey do no t ex pr es sl y in co rp or at e e a ch

ot he r. Bu t Mi nn es ot a co ur ts do no t req ui re th at se pa rat e ag reem en ts in co rp or at e each

ot he r to be co ns id ered pa rts of th e sa m e co nt ract

. Mar so , 15 3 N.W .2d at 28 9 (“ W he re

se ve ral in st ru m en ts are m ad e p art of o ne tra ns act io n, t he y wil l b e rea d to ge th er and
each wil l be co ns tru ed wit h refere nc e to th e ot he rs , al th ou gh th e in st ru m en ts do no t in ter m s re fer t o e ach ot he r.”).

Fo r th es e r e a s o n s , we ho ld th at th e Offer Lett er, Em pl oyee Agr eem en t, an d Rep ay m en t Ag reem en t ar e p art s o f a s in gl e co nt ract

.

B.

W e ne xt ad dr es s Gan no n’s arg um en t th at la ngua ge in the Em

pl oyee Agr eem en t

pr ecl ud es ap pl ic at io n of it s fo ru m se le ct io n cl au se to th is act io n. The fo ru m se le ct io n cl a u s e s ay s th at di sp ut es “ ari si ng ou t of or rel at ed to th is Agr eem en t” m us t be
li ti ga te d in Mi nn es ot a st at e co ur t. Gan no n co nt en d s t h a t t h e cl au se is
, at th e ve ry le as t, am bi gu ou s whe th er it ex te nd s to cl ai m s ar isi ng fr om the Re pa y m en t Agr eem en t,

-5

-an d we sh ou ld th eref or e co ns tru e it a g a i n s t it s dr aft er, Med tro ni c. Se e Hil li go ss v. Ca rg il l, In c. , 64 9 N.W .2d 14 2, 14 8 (M i nn

. 20 02 ) (“ A fu nd am en ta l pr in ci pl e of

co nt ract la w i s th at whe n co nt ract la ng ua ge is reas on ab ly su sc ep ti bl e of m or e th an

on e in te rp ret at io n it is am bi gu ou s, an d am

bi gu ou s co nt ract te rm s m us t be co ns tru ed

ag ai ns t th e dr aft er

. . . .”). Howev er, th e cl au se is reas on ab ly su sc ep ti bl e to on ly on e in te rp ret at io n.

W he n an al y zi ng th e fo ru m se le ct io n cl au se , we m us t “ av oi d an in te rp ret at io n th at ren de rs a cl au se m ean in gl es s

. ” S e e For tu ne Fun di ng , LLC v. Cer id ia n Co rp

. , 36 8 F.3 d 98 5, 98 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (ap pl y in g Mi nn es ot a la w). W e ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at “ [b ]ecaus e th e wor ds ‘aris in g ou t of ’ m us t m ean di sp ut es ab ou t th e
te rm s of th e Em

pl oyee Ag r e e men t— th at is
, co nf id en ti al it y , res tri ct iv e co ve na nt , et c.—t he wor ds ‘or rel at in g to ’ m us t m ean s o met h i n g el se .” Med tr on ic So fa mor Dan ek, In c., et al

. v. Gan no n , No. 0: 17 -cv -0 09 43
, 20 17 W L 46 85 04 1, at *4 (D. Mi nn

. Oct. 16
, 20 17 ). Our an al y si s ab ou t whe th er th e Rep ay m en t Agr eem en t an d Em pl oyee Agr eem en t are di f

f e r e n t pa rts of th e sa m e co nt ract ap pl ie s he re an d req ui res us to

co nc lu de th at th e Rep ay m en t Agr eem en t is un am bi gu ou sl y “ rel at ed to ” th e Em pl oyee Agr eem en t. The y were ex ecu te d at th e sa m e ti m e an d f o r t h e s a m e pu rp os e, an d
wit ho ut ei th er on e of th em , th e Offer Lett er wou ld be un en fo rcea bl e. The Rep ay m en t Agr eem en t an d Em

pl oyee Agr eem en t are al so co m pl em en ta ry in th at t h e y a d d r es s di ffer en t asp ect s of the sa m e em pl oym en t rel at io ns hi p. The Rep ay m en t Agree m en t fo cu se s on co m

pe nsa tio n, an d the Em

pl oyee Agr eem en t on th in gs li ke co nf id en ti al it y , pr op rie ta ry in ve nt io ns , an d res tri ct io ns on co m pe ti ti on

. In de ed
, th e Emp l o yee Agr eem en t ex pr es sl y sa ve s co m pe ns at io n te rm s fo r “ se pa rat e do cu m en ts pr ov id ed to [ G a n n on ], ” an ot he r in di cat io n th at an y su ch do cu m en t ( i.e.
, th e Rep ay m en t Agr eem en t) i s “ rel at ed to ” it

.
Gan no n al so rel ie s on th e “ Pri or Agr eem en ts ” se ct io n of th e Em pl oyee Agr eem en t, whi ch sa y s th at “ no th in g in [th e Em pl oyee Agr eem en t] affe ct s an y te rm

or pro vi si on of a ny MEDTRONIC co m pe ns at io n o r be ne fit pl an or a ny agre em en ts rel at ed th eret o.” He arg ue s th at ap pl ic at io n of th e fo ru m se le ct io n cl au se vi ol at es th e

-6

-“ Pri or Agr eem en ts ” se ct io n be cau se do in g so “ affe ct s” th e Rep a y m en t Agr eem en t.

Bu t u n d e r M i n n es ot a la w, “ th e sp eci fic in a writ in g go ve rn s ov er th e ge ne ral ,” an d
th eref or e th e “ Pri or Agr eem en ts ” se ction ca nnot supe rs ed e the foru m se le ct io n cl au se , whi ch is sp eci fic to th e qu es ti on of pr op er ve nu e in th is cas e. Se e Bur gi v. Eckes
, 35 4
N.W .2d 51 4, 51 9 (Mi nn

. Ct

. App

. 19 84 ). W e al so no te th at Gan no n’s in te rp ret at io n

crea te s a c on fli ct wit hi n t he Em pl oyee Agre em en t b et ween th e “ Pri or Agre em en ts ”

se ct io n an d t h e f

o r um se le ct io n cl au se

. Su ch an in te rp ret at io n is di sf av or ed

. Se e Ost er v. Med tr on ic

, In c. , 42 8 N.W .2d 11 6, 11 9 (Mi nn

. Ct

. App

. 19 88 ) (“ W he re th ere is an ap pa ren t co nf

li ct be twee n two cl au se s or pr ov is i o n s o f a c o n tra ct , it is th e

co ur t ’s d u t y to fin d ha rm on y be twee n th em an d to reco nc il e th em if po ss ib le .”).
Thu s, th e la ng ua ge of th e Em pl oyee Agr eem en t do es no t pr ecl ud e ap pl ic at io n of it s fo ru m sel ect io n c la us e to th is act io n.

II I.

W e co nc lu de th at th e Em pl oyee Agre em en t con ta in s a cl ear and un eq ui vo cal
fo ru m se le ct io n cl au se th at un am bi gu ou sl y en co m

pa ss es th e Rep ay m en t Agr eem en t,

an d we a ffi rm

th e d is tri ct co ur t’s g ran t o f Med tro ni c’s m ot io n t o re m an d.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-