McLain v. Walmart Inc.

Filing 25

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/25/2024. (LAB)

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION LEAH Y. McLAIN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) WALMART, INC., dba Walmart ) Neighborhood Market, ) ) Defendant. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24cv267-MHT (WO) OPINION After being struck by boxes that fell off a Walmart employee’s moving cart, plaintiff Leah Y. McLain brought this lawsuit for negligence and wantonness in an Alabama state court against defendant Walmart, Inc. Walmart then removed the case to this federal court, see 28 U.S.C. § 1441, asserting diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This court now has under submission two motions: (1) McLain’s motion to amend her complaint to join Walmart employee Danny Johnson; and (2) her motion to remand. For the following reasons, both motions will be granted. I. ALLEGED FACTUAL BACKGROUND In early January 2022, McLain had back surgery. Two months later, in early March, her doctor noted that her recovery was going well, her pain was greatly recovery would reduced, and her surgical site was healing. But the trajectory of McLain’s change in April, when she was shopping at a Walmart Neighborhood Market in Montgomery, Alabama. was shopping, a Walmart employee was While she steering a “rolling truck cart overloaded with boxes that toppled over” and fell on her legs. Compl. (Doc. 1-2) ¶3. The boxes bruised McLain’s legs, caused her back pain, and aggravated her pre-existing back injuries. Over the next few days, she visited several doctors, who noted that the incident caused her severe pain and interfered with her post-surgical recovery. 2 Eventually, McLain’s doctors responded by having her take a course of injections from September 2022 to January 2023 to try to resolve her pain. incident, her The week after the moving cart attorney notified Walmart to preserve evidence of the incident. Then, in January 2023, McLain’s attorney contacted Walmart again, offering medical records in to exchange provide for it with McLain’s information on what evidence was preserved, any witness statements, and the name of the employee who was pushing the moving cart. The attorney contacted Walmart once more a few weeks later, reattaching the earlier message, indicating the attorney did not receive the “[requested] items or a sufficient reply,” and threatening suit. See Pl.’s Mot. Disc. Ex. A (Doc. 5-1), at 2. In June, after the injections failed to remedy her pain, McLain had another back surgery. All in all, she allegedly accrued $ 122,849.96 in medical expenses. 3 II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In March 2024, McLain filed a complaint in an Alabama state court, asserting a claim of negligence and wantonness against Walmart defendants (A, B, and C). and three fictitious Walmart was served in April and then removed the case to this federal court in May. In July, McLain filed a motion for discovery in this court, requesting that Walmart identity of “Fictitious Defendant A.” disclose the See Pl.’s Mot. Disc (Doc. 5). As the discovery motion was filed prior to conferring the denied parties as premature. See under Rule 26(f), Order Denying it was Pl.’s Mot. Discovery (Doc. 15), at 1 (discussing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1)). Eventually, in September, after discovery commenced, Walmart disclosed to McLain’s attorney the identity of “Fictitious Defendant Danny Johnson, an Alabama citizen. A,” now known as Three days later, McLain filed a motion to amend her complaint to join 4 Johnson as a defendant, as well as a motion to remand this case back to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. III. DISCUSSION As stated, the court now has before it two motions: (1) McLain’s motion to amend her complaint to join Walmart employee Johnson as a defendant; and (2) her motion to remand to state court for state court lack of may be subject-matter jurisdiction. A civil action brought in removed by a defendant to federal court if it could have been instance. brought in federal court See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). in the first In this case, as stated, removal was pursuant to diversity jurisdiction, which requires the amount in controversy to exceed $ 75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. U.S.C. § 1332(a). For complete 5 diversity, See 28 all the plaintiffs in a case must have diverse citizenship from all the defendants. See Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 89 (2005). under 28 U.S.C. The party seeking removal has, § 1446, the burden of establishing jurisdiction. See Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001). The record reflects that, at the time of removal, McClain was a citizen of Alabama and Walmart was a citizen of Delaware (its place of incorporation) and Arkansas (its principal place of business). purposes of removal § 1441(b)(1) defendants based provides sued disregarded.” under on that diversity, “the fictitious And, for 28 U.S.C. citizenship of names be shall When the case was removed, this court, had subject-matter jurisdiction because at the time of removal there was complete diversity of citizenship. However, at any time after removal, a party may move to remand the case to state court due to a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 6 See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1214 n. 64 (11th Cir. defendant, Johnson 2007). Danny and Here, Johnson, McLain are McLain an seeks Alabama both to join citizen. citizens of a As Alabama, Johnson’s joinder would destroy complete diversity, for the plaintiff and a defendant would be citizens of the same State. Consequently, this court would be deprived of federal jurisdiction. When a plaintiff seeks to join a defendant whose presence would destroy subject-matter jurisdiction, a federal court may permit joinder and remand the action or deny joinder and retain jurisdiction. § 1447(e)). Determining whether See 28 U.S.C. joinder should be permitted requires the court to balance the equities by considering four factors: “[1] the extent to which the purpose of the amendment is to defeat federal jurisdiction, [2] whether plaintiff has been dilatory in asking for amendment, [3] whether plaintiff will be significantly injured if amendment is not allowed, and 7 [4] any other Hensgens v. factors Deere (5th Cir. 1987). Fifth Circuit & bearing Co., on 833 the F.2d equities.” 1179, 1182 While Hensgens is a case from the Court of Appeals, this court has repeatedly found its approach compelling. See, e.g., Woodham 1:08cv207, v. 2008 Wal-Mart WL Stores E., 1971382 L.P., No. (M.D. Ala. May 2, 2008) (Thompson, J.)). Upon considering these Hensgens factors, the court concludes that McLain should be permitted to join Danny Johnson. First, the purpose of amending the complaint does not appear to be to defeat federal jurisdiction. An important consideration in determining the purpose of joinder, is whether Johnson might be independently liable to McLain. See, e.g., Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Centers, Inc., 577 F.3d 752, 764-67 (7th Cir. 2009). In this case, Johnson may be independently liable to McLain. Under Alabama law, an “employer may be held vicariously liable for the intentional tort of its 8 employee or agent if the plaintiff produces sufficient evidence showing ‘that [1] the agent's wrongful acts were in the line and scope of his employment; or [2] that the acts were in furtherance of the business of [the employer]; or [3] that [the employer] participated in, authorized, or ratified the wrongful acts.’” Synergies3 Tec Servs., LLC v. Corvo, 319 So. 3d 1263, 1273 (Ala. 2020) (quoting Potts v. BE & K Constr. Co., 604 So. 2d 398, 400 (Ala. 1992)) (citations omitted). Yet, an employer’s vicarious liability does not relieve the employee Liberty Nat. (Ala. 1987). of his Life own Ins. Rather, liability. Co., the 514 So. employee See Grimes v. 2d 965, 968 may still be independently liable to an allegedly wronged person if the employee breaches a duty he owed to that person. See id. Here, McLain asserts a claim for Johnson may independently owe her. Centers, Inc. v. Laxson, 9 655 So. a duty that See Lowe’s Home 2d 943, 947 (Ala. 1994). She contends that Johnson injured her by negligently and wantonly operating the moving cart. At a minimum, McLain may be able to prove Johnson was negligent because he breached his duty to reasonable care in operating the moving cart. exercise See id. Nevertheless, Walmart argues that the purpose of joining Johnson is to destroy jurisdiction because joining him does not provide “any additional avenues” for relief provide.” “beyond See what Walmart Walmart’s may Response be required (Doc. 23) to ¶7. Walmart explains that it is vicariously liable for the actions of employees acting within the scope of their employment. Correspondingly, it contends that, if Johnson were acting in his scope of employment, then Walmart would be responsible and provide the exact same relief as Johnson. Accordingly, Walmart contends that the purpose of adding Johnson is not to bring a claim against him, but rather to destroy complete diversity. 10 However, elsewhere and critically, Walmart disputes that Johnson was acting in the scope of his employment. Compare Walmart’s Answer (Doc. 2), ¶¶ 3,7-8 McLain’s Complaint (Doc. 1-2), ¶¶ 3,7-8. if it were not vicariously liable with Resultingly, for Johnson’s actions, then suing Johnson would not be an additional avenue of relief, but rather McLain’s only avenue of relief. Citing Smart v. Circle K Stores, Inc., Walmart also contends that McLain’s simultaneous filing of her motion to amend with her motion to remand indicates that the motion to amend diversity jurisdiction. is intended to destroy No. 2:24CV73, 2024 WL 4184071 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 9, 2024) (Pate, M.J.), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:24CV73, 2024 WL 4363142 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 30, 2024) misunderstands Smart. (Thompson, J.). Walmart In Smart, the plaintiff knew the identities of the parties she sought to join prior to filing her original complaint, and intentionally did 11 not name them. See id. at *5-7. What mattered was the context in which the motions were simultaneously filed, not that they were filed simultaneously--which does not inherently imply anything. In that context, the simultaneous filing was further circumstantial evidence that joinder was intended to destroy jurisdiction. id. See Contrastingly, McLain did not know Johnson’s name prior to discover filing it. suit despite Moreover, McLain repeated efforts generally to described Johnson as “Fictitious Defendant A” in her original, state-court complaint and sought to join him three days after discovering his name. See Dever v. Fam. Dollar Stores 755 of Georgia, (11th Cir. 2018). LLC, In this F. App’x context, 866, 869 simultaneously filing both motions seems more like an attempt to save time than to destroy federal jurisdiction. Second, McLain has not been dilatory in seeking an amendment. discover For over a year and a half, she tried to Johnson’s name from 12 Walmart. Moreover, as already explained, she generally described Johnson as a fictitious defendant in her original, state-court complaint and quickly sought to amend after discovering his name. Third, McLain would be significantly joinder were not permitted. relief from Johnson, her injured if If she wishes to seek only source of relief if Johnson were found to be acting outside the scope of his employment, would be to litigate parallel state and federal cases. That parallel litigation would increase her legal costs and risk spawning inconsistent results. See Hensgens, 833 F.2d at 1182. Finally, McLain to other amend. equitable This factors case is in favor allowing its infancy, discovery recently began, no dispositive motions have been filed, and parallel litigation would waste money and expend the time of two courts rather than one. 13 IV. For motion for leave to file an amended complaint will be granted. As the the foregoing CONCLUSION addition deprive this of reasons, Danny Johnson court of McLain’s as a federal defendant will subject-matter jurisdiction, McLain’s motion to remand will also be granted once the amended complaint has been filed. Appropriate orders will be entered. DONE, this the 25th day of November, 2024. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?