UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION fe fe of fe fe oe oe fe of fe fe oft oie fe fe fe 246 nfs fe fe ale fe ae fe fs oft fe 28 ot fe oft fe fe oe oe ot fe oft fe 2 oe fe 2h fe fe ot ae fe of ae fe oie oe Re ie fe ie oe □□ oie 2 2 oe OK □□ * gpac, LLP, * CIV 22-4167 Plaintiff, * * VS. * ORDER * ALEXANDER MAYER and * GREEN KEY RESOURCES LLC, * * Defendants. * % of fe he OR oe fe fe fe he Ae oie fe oie fe fe fe fe fe ofc fe fe fe fs fe fe fe os fe fe oft oe oe ee oe oe fe 2K ae fe 2 ae fe 2 ae 29s ee fe fe eR □□ fe fe Re oe fe oe oe Oo Oo □□ □□

Defendant on December 6, 2022, made a Motion to Transfer Venue or, in the Alternative, Stay the Litigation, Doc. 6, as Mayer’s action in the Middle District of Tennessee was first filed where Mayer lives and does business. However, while that Motion was pending and before this case was transferred to this Judge, the District Court in Tennessee transferred the first-filed Tennessee case to this Court. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue or in the Alternative, to Stay the Litigation, Doc.6, is moot and is denied. Plaintiff made a Motion to Remand to State Court on December 5, 2022. That Motion is based upon Plaintiffs representation that gpac disclaims all damages above $74,999.00 and claims this Court therefore lacks jurisdiction over the dispute. Among other things, Defendants resist the Motion primarily on the basis that not only does gpac’s Complaint request monetary damages up to $74,999.00, it also requests injunctive relief, attorney fees, and other costs. DISCUSSION Even if the Court assumes that attorney fees and costs are included within the $74,999.00 limitation, that ignores the injunctive relief requested. During the last full year of employment with gpac, Defendant earned $109,500.00. During his three years of employment with gpac, Mayer generated at least $300,000.00 in revenue for gpac.

There is no question that diversity exists and the Court concludes the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Kopp v. Kopp.

(8th Cir. 2002). The totality of the relief requested cannot be ignored. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: Ip That Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue or in the Alternative, Stay the Litigation, Doc. 6, is denied. 2: That Plaintiffs Motion to Remand to State Court, Doc. 2, is denied. Dated this TX day of June, 2022. BY THE COURT:

\ UWL Ubu Jury wrence L. Piersol ATTEST: United States District Judge MATTHEW W. THELEN, CLERK Vile AC