Club Car Wash Operating, LLC v. Hebert

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
CLUB CAR WASH OPERATING, LLC 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. 2:26-cv-04042-MDH
)
BRETT HEBERT, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. (Doc. 11). Plaintiff filed Suggestions in
Support (Doc. 12), Defendant filed Suggestions in Opposition (Doc. 21) and Plaintiff has filed a
reply. (Doc. 23). The motion is now ripe for adjudication on the merits. For the reasons stated
herein, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of an alleged breach of the Non-Compete, Non-Solicitation, Non-
Disclosure and Confidentiality Agreement (“Agreement”) Defendant entered into with Plaintiff.
Plaintiff Club Car Wash Operating, LLC is a limited liability company and owned by Roland S.
Bartels, a Missouri Citizen. Defendant Brett Hebert is a former employee of Plaintiff and a resident
of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin.
On February 20, 2026, Defendant removed the case from the Circuit Court of Boone
County, Missouri to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441
and 1446. On February 27, 2026, Plaintiff filed its current motion seeking to remand the case back
to the Circuit Court of Boone County, Missouri. Plaintiff argues that the Agreement contained a
Case 2:26-cv-04042-MDH Document 25 Filed 03/24/26 Page 1 of 4

2
choice of law and venue provision which mandated that any litigation regarding a breach or
threatened breach of the Agreement shall be conducted in the Boone County Circuit Court in
Boone County, Missouri. Defendant argues that the Eighth Circuit imposes a clear and unequivocal
standard regarding any waiver of a party’s statutory right to removal and the Agreement’s Choice
of Law and Venue Provision does not meet that standard. The Court will evaluate the merits of
these arguments below.
STANDARD
An action may be removed from state court to federal district court if the case falls within
the original jurisdiction of the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and 1446(b). 	A removing
defendant “bears the burden of establishing that the district court ha[s] original jurisdiction by a
preponderance of the evidence.” Knudson v. Sys. Painters, Inc., 634 F.3d 968, 975 (8th Cir. 2011).
“All doubts about federal jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of remand to state court.” Id.,
citing Junk v. Terminix Int'l Co., 628 F.3d 439, 446 (8th Cir. 2010).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff argues that the parties’ forum selection clause in the Agreement constitutes a
waiver of Defendant’s right to remove this case to federal court. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that
the parties unequivocally agreed that any litigation arising out of the Agreement shall be conduced
in the Boone County Circuit Court in Boone County, Missouri and that the parties further agreed
that they waived any and all venue requirements, as a result of their choice of venue. Defendant
argues that the Eighth Circuit imposes a clear and unequivocal standard to any waiver of a party’s
statutory right to remove and that the alleged waiver fails the standard. In support the Defendant
argues that the use of “shall” does not constitute a waiver of removal and that the waiver of venue
requirements doe not reach federal removal rights.
Case 2:26-cv-04042-MDH Document 25 Filed 03/24/26 Page 2 of 4

3
“A forum selection clause may waive a defendant’s right to remove if it is ‘clear and
unequivocal.’” OHM Hotel Group, LLC v. Dewberry Consultants, LLC, 2016 WL 427959, *4
(E.D. Mo. Feb. 4, 2016) (quoting Weltman v. Silna, 879 F.2d 425, 427 (8th Cir. 1989)). In
Weltman, the Eighth Circuit did not quote the forum selection clause but found it was not “clear
and unequivocal” because it did not address removal. Weltman, 879 F.2d at 427. The Eighth Circuit
addressed waiver again in iNet Directories, LLC v. Developershed, Inc., 394 F.3d 1081 (8th Cir.
2005). There, “the Eighth Circuit held that specific language waiving a right to ‘remove” is not
necessarily required; language waiving a right to object to venue is sufficient to waive the right to
remove.” Hurtt Fabricating Corp. v. RN’G Constr., Inc., 2024 WL 2048869, *3 (E.D. Mo. May
8, 2024) (citing iNet Directories, 394 F.3d at 1081–82).
“The Eighth Circuit has not addressed whether a defendant may clearly and unequivocally
waive its right to remove through a forum selection clause that contains no specific ‘waiver’
language.” Id. at *4. “[H]owever, several district courts within the Eighth Circuit have found that
a defendant may do so through a forum selection clause that specifies a state-court forum and
includes language such as ‘sole,’ ‘exclusive,’ or ‘only,’ reasoning that such language demonstrates
the parties’ agreement that the only proper venue for resolving disputes is the specified state court,
to the exclusion of all other venues.” Id.
Here, the Agreement states:
CHOICE OF LAW AND VENUE. The parties hereby agree that the validity and
construction of this Agreement shall be determined in accordance with the laws of
the State of Missouri. The parties hereby specifically agree that any litigation
regarding a breach or threatened breach of this Agreement shall be conducted in
the Boone County Circuit Court in Boone County, Missouri, and the parties
explicitly waive any and all venue requirements as a result of this choice of venue
agreement contained herein.
Case 2:26-cv-04042-MDH Document 25 Filed 03/24/26 Page 3 of 4

4
(Doc. 1-2, ¶ 15) (Emphasis added). The Court finds this provision of the Agreement includes
exclusive language that demonstrates the parties’ agreement that the only prover venue is the
Circuit Court of Boone County, Missouri through the use of the word “shall”. Further, the parties
waived any objections to the venue. Defendant does not dispute the validity of the Agreement or
execution and instead argues that the clear and unequivocal standard has not been met. The Court
disagrees and finds that Defendant waived his right to removal upon signing the Agreement. For
the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED. It is hereby
ORDERED that this matter be REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Boone County, Missouri.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 24, 2026
/s/ Douglas Harpool 	____
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-04042-MDH Document 25 Filed 03/24/26 Page 4 of 4