Rogers v. Walmart Home Office et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider 17 is denied. Plaintiff's Motion for Copies 19 is denied as moot. Plaintiff's "Motion to Show All Documents Authorizing Payment" 20 is denied as moot. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
WILLIAM ROGERS JR.,
Plaintiff,
V.
WALMART HOME OFFICE, and
AMANDA, claim manager,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:15CV272

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff William Rogers, Jr.’s Motion to
Reconsider. (Filing No. 17.) For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff’s motion will
be denied.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, a resident of Nebraska, sued the “Walmart Home Office” and also a
claim manager named Amanda. He alleged that on June 1, 2012, he fell in a Walmart
in Oxnard, California and, as a result, he now suffers from back pain and
“uncontrolable [sic] urinating.” (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 3.) Plaintiff claimed
Walmart settled the case and someone named Nancy L. cashed the check. (Filing No.
1 at CM/ECF pp. 2, 5.) Plaintiff alleged he never received a check from Walmart, and
he “never had a chance to settle any amount with [] Amanda.” (Filing No. 1 at
CM/ECF pp. 1-2.) Plaintiff alleged that jurisdiction was proper in this court on the
basis of “Diversity of Citizenship.”
On November 3, 2015, the court conducted an initial review of Plaintiff’s
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (Filing No. 14.) On initial review, the
court found that Plaintiff had not alleged an amount in controversy exceeding
$75,000.00, as is required for federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

The court determined that even if Plaintiff had made such allegations, it would
question whether such an amount was legitimate. Giving Plaintiff the benefit of the
doubt, the court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file sufficient evidence showing that the
amount in controversy was greater than $75,000.00. Plaintiff did not respond to the
court’s November 3, 2015 order. Consequently, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s
Complaint without prejudice on January 4, 2016. (Filing No. 16.)
II. DISCUSSION
On January 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Reconsider, stating that he did
not receive the court’s November 3, 2015 order because he was unable to retrieve his
mail. Plaintiff’s motion also attempts to make a showing that his claim meets the
jurisdictional minimum. Plaintiff asserts that he still has medical problems and is not
able to pay his medical bills. He “thinks” that $75,000.00 “will be just half of [his]
medical bill[s].” (Filing No. 17 at CM/ECF p. 2.) He further asserts that as a result
of his condition, he is unable to obtain employment and is losing his family.
Setting aside the fact that Plaintiff’s submission is untimely, Plaintiff’s attempt
to show that his claim meets the jurisdictional threshold falls short. Other than
unsubstantiated statements, Plaintiff has offered no evidence suggesting that his
medical bills exceed $75,000.00, or that he has suffered other losses which surpass the
jurisdictional minimum. Because Plaintiff has failed to show by a preponderance of
the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, his Motion to
Reconsider will be denied. See Trimble v. Asarco, Inc., 232 F.3d 946, 959 (8th Cir.
2000) (quotation omitted) (abrogated on other grounds by Exxon Mobil Corp. v.
Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005)).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Filing No. 17) is denied.

2

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Copies (Filing No. 19) is denied as moot.

3.

Plaintiff’s “Motion to Show All Documents Authorizing Payment”
(Filing No. 20) is denied as moot.

DATED this 16th day of March, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Supervising Pro Se Judge

3