Sterling v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Filing 11

ORDER OF REMAND: This case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 1/17/2018. (mah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SANDY STERLING
Plaintiff,
vs.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-CV-1395-SMY-DGW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Pursuant to the Court’s obligation to raise sua sponte whether it has subject matter
jurisdiction, (Craig v. Ontario Corp., 543 F.3d 872, 875 (7th Cir.2008)), and having reviewed
the Notice of Removal in this case (Doc. 1), the Court finds that Defendant insufficiently pleaded
diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the Third
Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois.
Plaintiff Sandy Sterling filed suit against Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. on November
13, 2017, alleging that she sustained personal injuries after she was struck with a pallet jack
stacked with boxes of merchandise by an employee or agent of Defendant. The lawsuit was
originally filed in the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois.
Federal subject matter jurisdiction is alleged on the basis of diversity of citizenship pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1332.
A civil action may be removed to federal court if the district court has original
jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Courts have original jurisdiction of civil actions if there is
complete diversity between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive
Page 1 of 3

of interest and costs. Jurisdiction depends on the amount in controversy when the federal suit
began. Meridian Sec. Ins. v. Sandowski, 441 F.3d 536, 538 (7th Cir. 2006). The amount in
controversy stated in the plaintiff’s Complaint generally controls, unless it is legally impossible.
Rising-Moore v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., 435 F.3d 813, 815 (7th Cir. 2006). If the Complaint does
not establish the amount in controversy, the party invoking federal jurisdiction can use other
evidence. Meridian, 441 F.3d at 541-42; Chase v. Shop N’ Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., 110
F.3d 424, 427-28 (7th Cir. 1997).
Jurisdictional facts must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Meridian,
441 F.3d at 540. The removing party’s burden is to show “what the plaintiff hopes to get out of
the litigation.” Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446, 449 (7th Cir. 2005)
(“[P]art of the removing party's burden is to show not only what the stakes of the litigation could
be, but also what they are given the plaintiff's actual demands.”). The removal statute is
construed narrowly and any doubts regarding jurisdiction are resolved in favor of remand. Doe
v. Allied–Signal, Inc., 985 F.2d 908, 911 (7th Cir. 1993). The burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction falls on the party seeking removal.

If the district court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction, the action must be remanded to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Id.
In this case, Plaintiff’s Complaint requests judgment “in an amount more than
$50,000.00” (Doc. 1-1). Defendant asserts that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000
based on Plaintiff’s allegations that she sustained severe and permanent injuries, medical bills
totaling $23,813.19, and lost and "may in the future lose wages from her gainful employment"
(Doc. 1, p. 2).

These allegations, notwithstanding medical bills totaling $23,813.19, are

insufficient to establish the amount in controversy. See McMillian v. Sheraton Chi. Hotel &

Page 2 of 3

Towers, 567 F.3d 839, 844–45 (7th Cir. 2009) (finding claims for “future medical expenses” and
“pain and suffering” could not account for jurisdictional shortfall without competent proof).
Because Defendant has not provided the Court with any competent evidence indicating
that the amount in controversy actually exceeds $75,000, it has failed to meet its burden to
provide the Court with a plausible basis for concluding that the amount in controversy exceeds
the jurisdictional requirement.

Therefore, this Court does not have proper subject matter

jurisdiction over this matter and is obligated, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), to REMAND the
case back to the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 17, 2018
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3