Campbell v. Jackson Wal-Mart Supercenter Store #693 et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: It is ordered that 9 MOTION to Remand is DENIED. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 6/11/2015.(SCD)cc: COR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
(at Lexington)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

BRADLY CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff,
V.
WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP,
Defendant.

***

***

Civil Action No. 5: 15-132-DCR

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

***

***

This matter is pending for consideration of Plaintiff Bradly Campbell’s motion to
remand the case to state court. [Record No. 9] Having reviewed the motion and the record,
the Court has determined that a response is not necessary. For the reasons discussed below,
the plaintiff’s motion will be denied.
Campbell originally brought this action in Breathitt Circuit Court, alleging that he
sustained personal injuries after several fifty-pound bags of corn fell on him from a pallet at a
Wal-Mart store. [Record No. 1-1] On April 14, 2015, the plaintiff indicated in his response
to Defendant Wal-Mart East, LP’s interrogatories that he sought $462,000.001 in damages.
[Record No. 1-5, p. 6] Based on this response, the defendant properly removed the action to
this court on May 12, 2015, alleging diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. [Record
No. 1]

1
Specifically, the plaintiff sought $10,000.00 in medical expenses; $352,000.00 in damages for
pain and suffering; and $100,000.00 in compensatory and incidental damages. [Record No. 1-5, p. 6]

-1 

Following removal, the plaintiff claims that he “has reviewed his current medical
expenses and medical treatment.” [Record No. 9, p. 1] His recalculation is drastic. Rather
than the original sum of $462,000.00, Campbell now seeks only $71,000.00 -- slightly less
than the threshold requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction. [Id.] See 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a) (A federal district court has jurisdiction over any civil action where the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of
different states.). The plaintiff argues that, as a result, this Court lacks jurisdiction, and the
matter should be remanded to state court. [Record No. 9]
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has recognized that the
determination of federal jurisdiction in a diversity case is made as of the time of removal and
“events occurring after removal that reduce the amount in controversy do not oust
jurisdiction.” Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 230 F.3d 868, 871 (6th Cir. 2000). See also
St. Paul Mercury Indemnity C. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 284 (1938) (“Events occurring
subsequent to removal which reduce the amount recoverable, whether beyond the plaintiff’s
control or the result of his volition, do not oust the district court’s jurisdiction once it has
attached.”). The plaintiff’s stipulation does not suggest that the amount in controversy did
not reach the jurisdictional limit as of the time of removal. Instead, it reflects a post-removal
reevaluation of the action in which he has determined that he values his case at no more than
$71,000.00. See Jones v. Knox Exploration Corp., 2 F.3d 181, 183 (6th Cir. 1993).
Based on the foregoing, Campbell’s post-removal recalculation of his damage claim
does not divest the Court of jurisdiction. Because the amount in controversy at the time of
removal was $462,000.00, and because the parties are citizens of different states [Record No.
-2 

1], this Court has jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff Bradly Campbell’s Motion to Remand [Record No. 9] is
DENIED.
This 11th day of June, 2015.

-3