Chapple v. Polaris Industries, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL CHAPPLE, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. 1:25-cv-00095-SNLJ
)
POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court the on the defendant Rolla Cycles, Inc. d/b/a
Stahlman Powersports’ (hereinafter “Stahlman”) motion for reconsideration of its motion to
dismiss. [Doc. 44]. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Stahlman did not file a reply or address
plaintiff’s arguments. For the reasons set forth below, the motion for reconsideration [Doc.
44] is DENIED.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff originally filed his First Amended Petition for Damages in the Circuit Court
of Reynolds County, Missouri on November 15, 2024. See Michael Chapple vs. Polaris
Industries, Inc., et al., Reynolds County Missouri Case No. 24RE-CC00006. The petition
(and the first amended petition) alleged that plaintiff was a resident of Kansas, defendant
Stahlman was a resident of Missouri, and the Polaris defendants were citizens of Delaware
and Minnesota respectively. The Polaris defendants filed a Notice of Removal in May
2025 alleging that complete diversity existed to justify removal. [Doc. 41-2]. As part of
Case: 1:25-cv-00095-SNLJ Doc. #: 53 Filed: 03/03/26 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
the complete diversity jurisdiction argument, the Polaris defendants alleged that Stahlman
was not properly joined (fraudulently joined) as a defendant and therefore did not negate
their removal basis for complete diversity. Id. Plaintiff did not file a motion to remand.
Stahlman moved to dismiss the claims against it pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) alleging
that it was not the seller of the ATV; and, therefore, no claims can be asserted against it.
[Doc. 41]. On January 7, 2026, the Court entered an order denying the motion to dismiss
because Stahlman’s motion to dismiss introduced evidence outside the pleadings; and, the
Court declined to convert the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. [Doc.
43]. Stahlman has now filed the instant motion to reconsider the Court’s denial of its
motion to dismiss. [Doc. 44].
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not authorize or mention a motion to
reconsider. Humphreys v. Roche Biomedical Labs., Inc., 990 F.2d 1078, 1081 (8 th Cir.
1993); Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987, 989 (8th Cir. 1999). However, the Eighth Circuit
has determined that motions for reconsideration are “nothing more than Rule 60(b) motions
when directed at non-final orders.” Elder-Keep v. Aksamit, 460 F.3d 979, 984 (8 th Cir.
2006) (citing Anderson v. Raymond Corp., 340 F.3d 520, 525 (8 th Cir. 2003)). Rule 60(b),
which covers motions for relief from a judgment or order, “provides for extraordinary relief
which may be granted only upon an adequate showing of exceptional circumstances.” U.S.
Xpress Enters., Inc. v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 320 F.3d 809, 815 (8th Cir. 2003).
Case: 1:25-cv-00095-SNLJ Doc. #: 53 Filed: 03/03/26 Page: 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
III. 	DISCUSSION
Stahlman’s motion to reconsider first argues that since the removal to this Court is
based on Stahlman being an improperly joined forum defendant, the question is one of
procedure, not jurisdiction. According to Stahlman, since plaintiff did not file a motion to
remand in response to the removal notice, plaintiff has waived his right to contest the
allegations in the removal notice, specifically those related to fraudulent joinder.
Stahlman’s argument is disingenuous.1
Fraudulent joinder is defined as “the filing of a frivolous or otherwise illegitimate
claim against a non-diverse defendant solely to prevent removal.” Filla v. Norfolk
Southern Ry. Co., 336 F.3d 806, 809 (8 th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added). Here, plaintiff is a
resident of Kansas. [Docs. 1-6 at pp. 9, 102; 10]. Stahlman is a Missouri corporation doing
business in the State of Missouri. [Docs. 1-6 at pp. 10, 103, 158; 10]. Polaris Industries
Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Minnesota. [Doc. 1-6
at p. 41]. Polaris Sales Inc. is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business
in Minnesota. [Id.].
1 Stahlman cites to numerous cases in an attempt to allege that plaintiff’s failure to file a
motion to remand meant that plaintiff admitted the factual allegations contained in the
removal notice. Stahlman’s interpretation is in error and fails to consider the totality of the
statements made by the relevant courts. For example, in Belleville v. Cottrell, Inc.,
Stahlman cites a rule that the notice of removal’s factual allegations to support jurisdiction
will be accepted as true if they are not challenged by a motion to remand. 09-CV-00962-
JPG, 2010 WL 1251441, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 24, 2010). However, the Court went on to
indicate that, “this rule applies only to factual allegations such as, for example, allegations
of a party’s citizenship or of the amount in controversy. See, e.g., id. The general rule
does not apply to legal conclusions like the assertion that a defendant was
fraudulently joined.” Id. (citing Lewis v. AT & T Corp., 898 F. Supp. 907, 909 (S.D. Fla.
1995) (emphasis added)).
Case: 1:25-cv-00095-SNLJ Doc. #: 53 Filed: 03/03/26 Page: 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
It is clear to this Court that complete diversity existed at the time plaintiff filed his
original petition; and, complete diversity continued to exist at the time the notice of
removal was filed. Therefore, plaintiff did not name Stahlman solely to prevent removal
because Stahlman is, in fact, a diverse defendant. No fraudulent joinder exists. Clearly
plaintiff would have no obligation to file a motion to remand when complete diversity
exists, and removal to federal court was proper. In fact, any motion to remand filed by
plaintiff would have been frivolous and baseless.
Stahlman’s next argument is that the procedure for a motion to dismiss based on
fraudulent joinder is different than the procedure for a typical motion to dismiss such that
the Court may pierce the pleadings and consider the entire record. Again, fraudulent
joinder does not exist in this case. Accordingly, this Court’s denial of the motion to
dismiss because Stahlman introduced evidence outside the pleadings is correct; and, the
Court properly declined to convert the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary
judgment. [Doc. 43].
None of Stahlman’s arguments set forth or provide an adequate showing of
exceptional circumstances to warrant this Court’s reconsideration of its Memorandum and
Order dated January 7, 2026. [Doc. 43].
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Rolla Cycles, Inc. d/b/a Stahlman
Powersports’ Motion to Reconsider [Doc. 44] is DENIED.
Case: 1:25-cv-00095-SNLJ Doc. #: 53 Filed: 03/03/26 Page: 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
SO ORDERED this 3rd day of March, 2026.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 1:25-cv-00095-SNLJ Doc. #: 53 Filed: 03/03/26 Page: 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>