Hobson v. Save-A-Lot Food Stores, Ltd.

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, denying 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Save-A-Lot Food Stores, Ltd.,denying 10 MOTION to Remand to State Court filed by Eddie Hobson. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 8/25/2017. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EDDIE HOBSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:17-cv-00617-JPG-DGW

SAVE-A-LOT FOOD STORES, LTD., d/b/a/
SAVE-A-LOT STORE #412,
and
MORAN FOODS, LLC,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on defendant Save-A-Lot Food Stores, LTD.’s
motion to dismiss (Doc. 3) and plaintiff Eddie Hobson’s motion for remand (Doc. 10). For the
reasons stated below, the Court denies both motions.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Eddie Hobson, a resident of Illinois, alleges that he was injured at a Save-A-Lot
food store in East St. Louis when he slipped on standing water in front of a freezer. (Am. Compl.
at ¶ 4, ECF No. 21.) Hobson claims that employees of the Save-A-Lot negligently failed to
inspect and clean the floors of spills, leading to the dangerous condition. (Am. Compl. ¶ 10.)
Save-A-Lot later filed concurrent motions to (1) remove the action to this Court based solely on
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332, and (2) dismiss the action for failure to state a claim
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hobson followed by filing a motion to remand
back to Illinois state court.
1

DISCUSSION
I.

MOTION TO DISMISS
Save-A-Lot argues that the action should be dismissed because the store that Hobson was

allegedly injured at—Save-A-Lot Store #412—is operated by Moran Foods, Inc. (Mot. to
Dismiss at ¶ 2, ECF No. 3.) Save-A-Lot claims that Hobson should have instead sued Moran
Foods, because suing Save-A-Lot directly would “pierce the corporate veil” and impose liability
on Save-A-Lot for the actions of Moran Foods employees. (Id at ¶ 3–4.) Regardless of the merits
of this argument, Save-A-Lot’s motion is now moot following Hobson’s amended complaint,
which added Moran Foods, LLC as a party to the action. (Am. Compl. ¶ 3.)
II.

MOTION TO REMAND
Hobson argues that the action should be remanded to Illinois state court because the

minimum amount-in-controversy for diversity jurisdiction does not exist. (Mot. to Remand, ECF
No. 10.) Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over a matter when the parties are citizens of
different states and the amount-in-controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The party
seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction bears the burden of demonstrating—by a preponderance of
the evidence—facts showing that the plaintiff stands to recover more than $75,000 in the suit.
McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (1936); Meridian Sec. Ins. Co. v.
Sadowski, 441 F.3d 536, 541 (7th Cir. 2006); Rising-Moore v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., 435 F.3d 813,
815 (7th Cir. 2006).
In the event of removal, the amount-in-controversy is determined on the day the suit was
removed. Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506, 510–11 (7th Cir. 2006). Post-removal events
to reduce the amount-in-controversy do not negate a jurisdictionally sufficient amount-incontroversy at the time of removal. St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283,

2

289–90; Meridian, 441 F.3d at 538; Rising-Moore, 435 F.3d at 816. Even if the plaintiff makes
an irrevocable promise after removal not to accept more than $75,000, the Court would not be
justified in remanding the case if federal jurisdiction existed at the time of removal. St. Paul, 303
U.S. at 292–93; Rising-Moore, 435 F.3d at 816; In re Shell Oil Co., 970 F.2d 355, 356 (7th Cir.
1992) (per curiam). In Illinois state law cases, where the Illinois Rules of Civil Procedure
prohibit plaintiffs from praying for a specific amount of relief in their complaints, the Seventh
Circuit has instructed that the amount-in-controversy may be determined by reference to the
plaintiff’s settlement demands. Meridian, 441 F.3d at 541; Rising-Moore, 435 F.3d at 816.
Here, the minimum amount-in-controversy existed at removal through evidence of
Hobson’s settlement demand of $100,000. (Resp. to Mot. to Remand, Ex. A, ECF No. 16.)
Hobson counters that the amount-in-controversy is less than $75,000 because he will accept
$74,000 to settle the case. (Mot. to Remand ¶ 2.) Since this promise was made after removal,
however, it does not quash the prior establishment of the minimum amount-in-controversy
required for diversity jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Save-A-Lot’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 3) is DENIED and
Hobson’s motion to remand (Doc. 10) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 25, 2017
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

3