Anthony v. Walmart, Inc.
| Diana Anthony |
| Walmart, Inc. |
| 3:2024cv01230 |
| July 23, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Thomas O Farrish |
| Vernon D Oliver |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 19, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 26 MOTION to Substitute Party by Diana Anthony. (Joaquin, Richard) |
| Set Deadlines: Status Report due by 9/26/2024 (Samson, J) |
| Filing 25 NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH PRETRIAL ORDER by Walmart, Inc. re 23 Order to Show Cause,,,,,,,,,,,,,, (Caines, Eric) |
| Filing 24 NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH PRETRIAL ORDER by Walmart, Inc. re 18 Order,,, (Caines, Eric) |
Filing 23
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re #1 Notice of Removal: "[A] court must satisfy itself that it has subject matter jurisdiction and may at any time in the course of litigation consider whether such jurisdiction exists." Mitskovski v. Buffalo & Fort Erie Pub. Bridge Auth., 435 F.3d 127, 133 (2d Cir. 2006). "If necessary, the court must consider its subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte." Perez v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 3:14-CV-01565 CSH, 2014 WL 7428280, at *1 (D. Conn. Dec. 31, 2014). Regarding removal, "[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C.A. 1447(c).Federal district courts have diversity jurisdiction over actions where there is complete diversity among parties and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000. 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). A removing party must establish "that it appears to 'a reasonable probability' that the claim is in excess of the statutory jurisdictional amount," exclusive of interest and cost. United Food & Com. Workers Union, Local 919, AFL-CIO v. CenterMark Properties Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 305 (2d Cir. 1994). Here, Defendant asserts that diversity jurisdiction exists. (ECF No. #1 para 3.) But the pleadings do not establish to a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. In the Notice of Removal, Defendant asserts that "Based on Plaintiff's allegations--including that she fractured her ankle and has been unable to work--and Plaintiff's counsel's demand of $174,000, claimed damages exceed $75,000.00." (Id.) "It may be that Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $75,000, but [s]he has neither prayed for such an amount nor detailed specific damages that give rise to such a prayer." Perez, 2014 WL 7428280, at *4. The Complaint simply states, "The amount, legal interest or property in demand is not less than FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($15,000.00), exclusive of interests and costs." (ECF No. #1 at 13.) And even assuming all Plaintiff's allegations as true, there are no plausible allegations in the Complaint concerning damages that would enable the Court to conclude to a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy is satisfied.While Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's counsel made a settlement demand in excess of $75,000, Defendant has not filed any document containing such a demand for the Court's consideration. The Court thus assumes that the settlement demand was made orally. Because federal courts must construe the removal statute narrowly, resolving any doubts against removability, district courts in this circuit have held that an oral settlement demand is not a sufficient basis for removal. Hogue v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., No. 22-CV-04829 (PMH), 2022 WL 2256291, at *2-*3 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2022) (collecting cases).Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to show cause why this case should not be remanded due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Any party may file a response to this order to show cause with competent evidence on or before September 26, 2024. In the absence of a timely response, the Court will likely dismiss or remand this action to the Connecticut Superior Court. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 9/12/2024. (Dao, J)
|
|
Filing 22
ORDER re #21 Notice. Plaintiff's counsel represents that Plaintiff intends to pursue the case in this court. Accordingly, by September 26, 2024, Plaintiff shall meet and confer with Defendant and then file a joint status report indicating whether there are any updates to the proposed deadlines in the Rule 26(f) report at ECF No. #17 . Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 9/12/2024.(Dao, J)
|
| Filing 21 NOTICE by Diana Anthony Status Notice (Joaquin, Richard) |
| Filing 20 Disclosure Statement by Diana Anthony. (Joaquin, Richard) |
| Filing 19 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard E. Joaquin on behalf of Diana Anthony (Joaquin, Richard) |
| Set Deadlines: Status Report due by 9/30/2024; Service Deadline set for 9/13/2024 (Samson, J) |
|
Filing 18
ORDER. In July 2024, this case was removed from the Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford, in the State of Connecticut, to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. On September 6, 2024, defense counsel represented that Plaintiff intended to withdraw this case and to refile in state court. (ECF No. #17 .) To date, counsel for Plaintiff has failed to enter a notice of appearance. Accordingly, by September 30, 2024, Plaintiff shall file a notice with this Court regarding intended next steps, including whether Plaintiff intends to proceed with this litigation pro se. If Plaintiff intends to withdraw this case, Plaintiff shall file a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(i). By September 13, 2024, Defendant shall serve a copy of this notice on Plaintiff and file proof of service.Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 9/9/2024.(Dao, J)
|
| Filing 17 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Springer, George) |
| Filing 16 NOTICE by Walmart, Inc. of Service of Court Orders in Removed Cases (Springer, George) |
| Set Deadlines: Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 9/5/2024 (Samson, J) |
| Filing 15 NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of #13 Standing Protective Order, #14 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction, #12 Electronic Filing Order, #1 Notice of Removal filed by Walmart, Inc., 10 Notice re: Disclosure Statement, #11 Order on Pretrial Deadlines Signed by Clerk on 7/24/2024. (Attachments: #1 standing order on removed cases)(Gaskins, A) |
| Filing 14 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.(Gaskins, A) |
|
Filing 13
Standing Protective Order Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 7/23/2024.(Gaskins, A)
|
|
Filing 12
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 7/23/2024.(Gaskins, A)
|
|
Filing 11
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 9/21/2024 Discovery due by 1/22/2025 Dispositive Motions due by 2/26/2025 Signed by Clerk on 7/23/2024.(Gaskins, A)
|
| Filing 10 Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, a disclosure statement must be filed with a party's first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the Court and must be supplemented if any required information changes during the case. Signed by Clerk on 7/23/24.(Hushin, Z.) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Depascale, Jr on behalf of Walmart, Inc. (Depascale, Michael) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Eric B. Caines on behalf of Walmart, Inc. (Caines, Eric) |
| Filing 7 Disclosure Statement by Walmart, Inc. identifying Corporate Parent Walmart, Inc. for Walmart, Inc.. (Springer, George) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE by Walmart, Inc. Statement Regarding Removed Cases (Springer, George) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE by Walmart, Inc. of Pending Motions (Springer, George) |
| Filing 4 ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses with Jury Demand by Walmart, Inc..(Springer, George) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE by Walmart, Inc. Certificate of Filing Copy of Notice of Removal in State Court (Springer, George) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by George C. Springer, Jr on behalf of Walmart, Inc. (Springer, George) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Walmart, Inc. from Hartford, case number HHD-CV24-6187829-S. Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ACTDC-7842946, filed by Walmart, Inc..(Springer, George) |
| Judge Vernon D. Oliver and Judge Thomas O. Farrish added. (Oliver, T.) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Anthony v. Walmart, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Diana Anthony | |
| Represented By: | Richard E. Joaquin |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Walmart, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Michael Depascale, Jr |
| Represented By: | George C. Springer, Jr. |
| Represented By: | Eric B. Caines |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
