Maggard v. Wal-Mart Stores, LP
Filing
20
OPINION AND ORDER: For reasons as stated within the order, the Court hereby ORDERS that the motion to remand (DE 18 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 3/8/16. (MRS)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION AT LONDON
MELISSA MAGGARD,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14-221-KKC
Plaintiff,
V.
OPINION AND ORDER
WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP
Defendant.
*** *** ***
This matter is before the Court on the motion to remand filed by the plaintiff
(DE 17). For the following reasons, the motion will be denied.
The plaintiff originally filed this action in Perry Circuit Court. She alleges
that she was walking into a Wal-Mart store and fell over a curb and some traffic
cones. She further alleges she suffered bodily injury and physical and mental pain as
a result of the incident. She alleges in her complaint that she has incurred medical
expenses and that she expects to continue to incur such expenses in the future.
By letter to Wal-Mart dated September 12, 2014, plaintiff alleged damages of
about $160,000. (DE 18-2, Letter.) In the letter, plaintiff agreed to settle the matter
for $125,000.
On November 14, 2014, the defendant, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, removed
the action to this Court asserting that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). That statute grants federal district courts jurisdiction over all
matters in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the dispute is
between citizens of different states.
There is no dispute that the plaintiff is a Kentucky citizen or that Wal-Mart
is a citizen of Delaware and Arkansas. As to the amount in controversy, Wal-Mart
relied on the September 12, 2014 letter from the plaintiff indicating she had suffered
damages of nearly $160,000. In addition, in her initial answers to interrogatories,
the plaintiff stated that she had incurred $450,000 in damages.
On August 4, 2015, Wal-Mart filed a motion for summary judgment. On
February 12, 2015, the plaintiff served Wal-Mart with an amended answer to the
interrogatory regarding her damages. In her amended answer, the plaintiff stated
she was seeking only $70,000 in damages.
On December 29, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action back
to state court, arguing that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.
The motion must be denied. Because jurisdiction is determined as of the time of
removal, events occurring after removal that reduce the amount in controversy do
not oust jurisdiction. Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 230 F.3d 868, 872 (6th Cir.
2000). At the time of removal, plaintiff asserted damages of more than $75,000.
Accordingly, this Court retains jurisdiction of this matter even after plaintiff’s postremoval amendment of her damages claim.
For all these reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that the motion to remand
(DE 18) is DENIED.
Dated March 8, 2016.
2
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?