Hubert v. Wal-Mart Louisiana, LLC et al

Filing 9

NOTICE AND ORDER: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Louisiana, LLC shall file a memorandum and supporting evidence concerning subject matter jurisdiction, specifically whether the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is me t, within ten (10) days of this Notice and Order. Plaintiff shall file either: (1) a memorandum and supporting evidence concerning the courts subject matter jurisdiction, specifically, whether the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C.  7; 1332 is met; or (2) a Motion to Remand, within ten (10) days after the filing of Defendants memorandum. The case will be allowed to proceed if jurisdiction is adequately established. The Scheduling Conference set for 4/20/2017 is RESET for 5/25/2017 at 11:30 AM in chambers before Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes. Signed by Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes on 4/17/2017. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CASSANDRA HUBERT
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 17-93-EWD
WAL-MART LOUISIANA, LLC
AND WAL-MART STORES, INC.
NOTICE AND ORDER
This is a civil action involving claims for damages as a result of injuries sustained by
Plaintiff, Cassandra Hubert (“Plaintiff”), on or about December 19, 2015. The matter was removed
by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Louisiana, LLC (“Defendants”) on February 20, 2017
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332.1
The Notice of Removal alleges that the parties are completely diverse.2 However, it is not
apparent from the face of Plaintiff’s Petition for Damages that the claims are likely to exceed
$75,000.00. Plaintiff alleges that she was injured when Defendants’ employee “opened and/or
unwrapped plastic wrap around a pallet, causing merchandise to fall onto [Plaintiff], thereby
resulting in injuries…”3 including, inter alia, injuries to her neck, lower back, arms, hands, left
shoulder, and left knee.4 Plaintiff asserts that as a result of the accident, she suffered damages
including past, present, and future physical pain and suffering; past, present, and future mental
pain, anguish, and distress; past, present and future medical expenses; past, present and future loss
of enjoyment of life; and past, present, and future lost wages.5 There is no allegation in the Petition

1

R. Doc. 1.
R. Doc. 1, ¶¶ 10-12.
3
R. Doc. 1-1, ¶ 3.
4
R. Doc. 1-1, ¶ 12.
5
R. Doc. 1-1, ¶ 13.
2

1

regarding the amount of Plaintiff’s medical expenses or lost wages, nor is there any additional
information regarding the scope and type of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.
In the Notice of Removal, Defendants assert that “[o]n January 4, 2017, defendants
propounded discovery to plaintiff to which plaintiff was asked to state whether she sustained
damages in excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. Plaintiff responded by providing
in answer to interrogatory number 34 that at this time it appears that her damages will likely exceed
$75,000.00.”6 Despite this assertion, the record does not contain the actual discovery request and
response relied upon by Defendants to establish the amount in controversy. Moreover, in the
parties’ Status Report, Plaintiff does not set forth the amount of lost wages claimed, and sets forth
known medical expenses totaling $12,083.01.7
Based on the allegations set forth in the Petition, as well as the information in the Notice
of Removal and the parties’ Status Report, the court sua sponte raises the issue of whether it may
exercise diversity jurisdiction in this matter, specifically, whether the amount in controversy
requirement has been met.
IT IS ORDERED that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Louisiana, LLC shall file a
memorandum and supporting evidence concerning subject matter jurisdiction, specifically whether
the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is met, within ten (10) days of this
Notice and Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file either: (1) a memorandum and
supporting evidence concerning the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, specifically, whether the
amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is met; or (2) a Motion to Remand, within

6
7

R. Doc. 1, ¶ 5.
R. Doc. 6.

2

ten (10) days after the filing of Defendants’ memorandum. The case will be allowed to proceed if
jurisdiction is adequately established.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the scheduling conference set for April 20, 2017 is
RESET to Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 11:30 a.m.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on April 17, 2017.

S
ERIN WILDER-DOOMES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3