- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Boutain v. Wal-Mart, Inc.
Factual and Procedural Background
This case arises from a slip and fall incident occurring on July 8, 2019, at a Walmart store in New Orleans, Louisiana. Plaintiff Paula Boutain alleges injuries including neck and back pain, muscle spasms, decreased range of motion, tenderness, stiffness, and lumbar spine pain. She sought damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost earnings, permanent disability, loss of enjoyment of life, and disfigurement. The action was originally filed in state court but was removed to federal court by Defendants based on diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing that the federal court lacks jurisdiction.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 based on complete diversity of citizenship between the parties.
- Whether the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory threshold of $75,000, thereby justifying removal to federal court.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) | Permits removal of civil actions to federal court unless prohibited by statute. | Supported the procedural basis for removal of this action from state to federal court. |
| Gutierrez v. Flores, 543 F.3d 248, 251 (5th Cir. 2008) | Principles of comity and federalism require strict construction of removal statutes. | Guided the court to resolve doubts about removal in favor of remand, though ultimately removal was proper here. |
| In re Hot-Hed Inc., 477 F.3d 320, 323 (5th Cir. 2007) | Any doubt as to propriety of removal should be resolved in favor of remand. | Reinforced the burden on the removing party to prove removal was proper. |
| In re DEEPWATER HORIZON, 745 F.3d 157, 162-63 (5th Cir. 2014) | Burden of proof on removing party to demonstrate proper removal. | Placed the burden on Defendants to show amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) | Establishes subject matter jurisdiction based on complete diversity and amount in controversy. | Used to determine whether federal jurisdiction exists in this case. |
| Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) | Complete diversity requires each plaintiff to be diverse from each defendant. | Applied to confirm the parties are completely diverse for jurisdictional purposes. |
| Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 249 (5th Cir. 1996) | State citizenship for diversity purposes is synonymous with domicile. | Determined Plaintiff’s Louisiana domicile establishes her citizenship for diversity. |
| In re 1994 Exxon Chem. Fire, 558 F.3d 378, 388 (5th Cir. 2009) | Louisiana law does not limit recovery to the amount sought in the petition. | Supported the court’s consideration of the amount in controversy beyond the pleadings. |
| Grant v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., 309 F.3d 864, 869 (5th Cir. 2002) | Removal proper if amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 by preponderance of evidence. | Guided the court’s analysis of the amount in controversy requirement. |
| De Aguilar, 47 F.3d at 1412 (cited in Grant) | Plaintiff can defeat jurisdiction only by showing to legal certainty amount does not exceed jurisdictional threshold. | Used to evaluate Plaintiff’s failure to prove to a legal certainty the amount in controversy is below $75,000. |
| Martin v. ERMC II, 23 So.2d 1008 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2009); Duchamp v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 916 So.2d 498 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2005) | Examples of cases where similar back and neck injuries satisfied amount in controversy requirement. | Supported the court’s conclusion that the injuries alleged likely exceed $75,000 in controversy. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court first confirmed that subject matter jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), requiring complete diversity and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. It analyzed the citizenship of the parties, determining that Plaintiff is a Louisiana citizen by domicile, while Defendants are diverse corporate entities with citizenship traced through their members and parent companies in Delaware and Arkansas. Thus, complete diversity exists.
Regarding the amount in controversy, the court noted Louisiana law does not cap recovery by the amount claimed in the petition. Defendants bear the burden to show by a preponderance of evidence that the amount exceeds $75,000, and Plaintiff can only defeat jurisdiction by proving to a legal certainty the amount is below that threshold.
The court examined Plaintiff’s medical treatment and injuries, which include neck and back pain, muscle spasms, diagnostic imaging, invasive procedures such as bilateral lumbar medial branch blocks and radiofrequency ablation, and ongoing neurological and pain management treatment. The court found that similar injuries in prior cases have met the amount in controversy requirement.
Because Plaintiff failed to provide a stipulation or affidavit to establish to a legal certainty that damages would not exceed $75,000, the court concluded that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. Therefore, removal was proper and the motion to remand was denied.
Holding and Implications
DENIED: The Court denied Plaintiff Paula Boutain's Motion to Remand, holding that federal diversity jurisdiction exists because the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
The direct effect of this decision is that the case will proceed in federal court. The opinion does not establish new precedent but applies well-established principles governing removal jurisdiction and amount in controversy determinations.
SUSIE MORGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff Paula Boutain's Motion to Remand because this Court lacks jurisdiction. Defendants oppose the motion. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
R. Doc. 13.
R. Doc. 15.
BACKGROUNDThis is a slip and fall action originally filed in state court. Plaintiff alleges she sustained injuries as a result of a slip and fall on July 8, 2019, at a Walmart store located in New Orleans, Louisiana. In her state court petition, Plaintiff sought damages including past, present, and future medical expenses; past, present, and future pain and suffering; past, present, and future lost earnings; past, present, and future permanent disability to the body; past present, and future loss of enjoyment of life; and past, present and future disfigurement and scarring. Defendants removed the action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff has not objected to the timeliness of the removal.
R. Doc. 1-1.
Id.
R. Doc. 1.
LEGAL STANDARDA civil action may be removed to federal court unless expressly prohibited by another statute. The principles of comity and federalism mandate strict construction of removal statutes in order to minimize encroachment on the sovereignty of state courts. Thus, "any doubt as to the propriety of removal should be resolved in favor of remand." The removing party bears the burden of proving that removal is proper.
See Gutierrez v. Flores, 543 F.3d 248, 251 (5th Cir. 2008).
In re Hot-Hed Inc., 477 F.3d 320, 323 (5th Cir. 2007).
See In re DEEPWATER HORIZON, 745 F.3d 157, 162-63 (5th Cir. 2014).
LAW AND ANALYSISSubject matter jurisdiction in this case is premised on diversity of citizenship. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), jurisdiction is proper when (1) the parties are completely diverse, and (2) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The parties are completely diverse when "the citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant." The notice of removal states Plaintiff is a Louisiana domiciliary. As a result, Plaintiff is considered to be a Louisiana citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. The notice of removal further states Wal-Mart Louisiana, L.L.C. is a Delaware limited liability company, with its sole member being Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, which is composed of two partners, namely WSE Management, LLC (GP) and WSE Investment, LLC (LP), both Delaware limited liability companies. The sole member of both WSE Management, LLC and WSE Investment, LLC is Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, an Arkansas limited partnership. The sole member of Wal- Mart Stores East, LP is its parent company Walmart, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Bentonville, Arkansas. The parties are completely diverse.
Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996).
R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 14.
See Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 249 (5th Cir. 1996) ("[W]ith few exceptions, state citizenship for diversity purposes is regarded as synonymous with domicile.").
In addition to complete diversity, Section 1332(a) requires the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. Louisiana law does not limit recovery to the amount sought in the petition. Accordingly, removal is proper if the Defendants can demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. If the Defendants meet this burden, Plaintiff "can defeat diversity jurisdiction only by showing to a 'legal certainty' that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000."
See In re 1994 Exxon Chem. Fire, 558 F.3d 378, 388 (5th Cir. 2009).
See Grant v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., 309 F.3d 864, 869 (5th Cir. 2002).
Id. (quoting De Aguilar, 47 F.3d at 1412).
In response to discovery, Plaintiff described her mental and physical injuries sustained as a result of the accident as injuries to her neck and back, including muscle spasms, decreased range of motion, tenderness, stiffness, and pain in the lumbar spine. Plaintiff also responded that she has been treated by a chiropractor, undergone cervical and lumbar MRIs at Diagnostic Imaging Services, and is being treated by Dr. Chad Domangue at Cypress Point Pain Management. Due to persistent pain, Plaintiff's treating physician referred her for bilateral lumbar medial branch blocks followed by a rhizotomy. In her deposition, Plaintiff confirmed she has received the recommended bilateral lumbar medial branch blocks and the radiofrequency ablation. Plaintiff is currently undergoing treatment with a neurologist and pain medicine doctor.
R. Doc. 13-2 at ¶ 7.
R. Doc. 15-1.
R. Doc. 13-2.
Courts have found that plaintiffs with similar back and neck injuries meet the amount in controversy requirement. Plaintiff's state court petition, as well as her responses to interrogatories and testimony at her deposition, demonstrate the amount in controversy is likely to exceed $75,000. Plaintiff's motion to remand falls short of demonstrating to a "legal certainty" her recovery will not exceed this amount.
See Martin v. ERMC, II, 23 So.2d 1008 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2009) ($103,000 for cervical and lumbar strain with possible spinal pathology and greatly reduced activity, treated with ESIs); Duchamp v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 916 So.2d 498 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2005) ($135,000 for herniated discs causing pain over three years and at time of trial with lifetime of conservative treatment and ESIs, recommended; surgery not contemplated).
R. Doc. 15-1.
Plaintiff was offered the opportunity to provide a stipulation or affidavit regarding the amount in controversy but declined to do so. --------
CONCLUSIONIT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 1st day of December, 2020.
/s/ _________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Alert