Sturdivant v. Walmart Inc.
| Tom Sturdivant |
| Walmart Inc |
| 1:2022cv03601 |
| July 12, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Marvin E Aspen |
| Steven C Seeger |
| P.I.: Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 22, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 REMAND with certified copy of order dated 8/22/2022 and letter to Circuit Court of Cook County via email. (cxr, ) |
| Filing 10 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff filed suit against Walmart in the Circuit Court of Cook County for an accident that happened in Bloomington, Illinois at a Walmart. (Dckt. No. [1-2]) Walmart, in turn, removed the case to federal court. (Dckt. No. #1 ) But Plaintiff filed a notice of removal in the Central District of Illinois. Id. That filing was problematic. The Circuit Court of Cook County is located in the Northern District of Illinois, not the Central District of Illinois. Under the removal statute, a case in state court "may be removed by the defendant... to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending." See 28 U.S.C. 1441(a). And the removal statute expressly requires the filing of a notice of removal in the (federal) district where the state court action is pending: "A defendant or defendants desiring to remove any civil action from a State court shall file in the district court of the United States for the district and division within which such action is pending a notice of removal...." See 28 U.S.C. 1446(a). Instead of filing a notice of removal in the Northern District of Illinois, Defendant filed the notice of removal in the Central District of Illinois. And the Central District of Illinois then transferred the case to this Court. Defendant could have removed the case here, but Defendant didn't remove the case here. Defendant removed the case to a district that Congress did not authorize. So Defendant brought this case to the wrong district court. Transferring the case to the Northern District of Illinois did not change the fact that the case never should have arrived in the Central District of Illinois in the first place. Defendant did not comply with the removal statute, and thus the motion to remand (Dckt. No. #8 ) is hereby granted. The Court directs the Clerk's Office to remove this case forthwith. The motion to strike (Dckt. No. #9 ) is hereby denied. True, Defendant presumably could remove this case again once it returns to state court. But that reality does not change the fact that Walmart improperly brought this case to federal court, and violated the removal statute on day one. The original ticket to federal court was defective, so the case must go back to state court. Mailed notice (kl, ) |
| ***Civil Case Terminated. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 9 MOTION by Defendant Walmart Inc to strike MOTION by Plaintiff Tom Sturdivant to remand #8 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Sun, Lucas) |
| Filing 8 MOTION by Plaintiff Tom Sturdivant to remand (Attachments: #1 Notice of Filing)(Zupances, Adriel) |
| Filing 7 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Walmart Inc by Lucas Sun (Sun, Lucas) |
| Filing 6 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: An initial status report is due by October 10, 2022. Counsel must read the Standing Order entitled "Initial Status Conferences and Joint Initial Status Reports" on the Court's website. The parties must confer as required by Rule 26(f) about the nature, scope, and duration of discovery. The parties must submit two documents to the Court. First, the parties must file the Joint Initial Status Report under Rule 26(f) on the docket. A Word version of the Joint Initial Status Report is available on the Court's website. All parties must participate in the preparation and filing of the Joint Initial Status Report. The Court requires a joint report, so a filing by one side or the other is not sufficient. Second, the parties must email a Word version of a proposed Scheduling Order under Rule 16(b) to the Court's proposed order inbox. Lead counsel for the parties must participate in filing the initial status report. Plaintiff must serve this Order on all other parties. If the defendant has not been served with process, plaintiff's counsel must contact the Courtroom Deputy at jessica_j_ramos@ilnd.uscourts.gov to reschedule the initial status report deadline. Plaintiff should not file the Joint Initial Status Report before the defendant(s) has been served with process. The parties must discuss settlement in good faith and make a serious attempt to resolve this case amicably. All counsel of record must read and comply with this Court's Standing Orders on its webpage. Please pay special attention to the Standing Orders about Depositions and Discovery. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 5 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case reassigned to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger for all further proceedings. Honorable Marvin E. Aspen no longer assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 294(b). Signed by Executive Committee on 7/13/2022. (jn, ) |
| Filing 4 MAILED Rule 83.15 Letter to all counsel of record. (ph, ) |
| Filing 3 RECEIVED from Illinois Central; Case Number 1:22-cv-01221. (ph, ) |
| CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (ph, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Marvin E. Aspen. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Sheila M. Finnegan. Case assignment: Random assignment. (ph, ) |
TEXT ONLY ORDER: Plaintiff filed a complaint in Cook County, Illinois, alleging he incurred injury at Defendant's store in Bloomington, Illinois. Defendant subsequently removed the matter to Federal Court in the Central District of Illinois. "Venue in an action removed from state court to federal court is governed by the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1441." Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Aaron Transfer & Storage, Inc., 200 F. Supp. 2d 941, 945 (N.D. Ill. 2002). Under 1441, the proper venue of a removed action is "in the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending." 28 U.S.C. 1441(a). Id. at 945-46. As this case was pending in Cook County, proper venue is in the Northern District of Illinois. The Court realizes that the Central District is likely a more convenient forum as contemplated under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). However, this must be left for another day as the action originally filed within the confines of the Northern District, was not rightly be removed to the Central District. Accordingly, this action is transferred to the Federal Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 07112022. (EE) [Transferred from Illinois Central on 7/12/2022.]
|
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by James P Balog on behalf of Walmart Inc. (Balog, James) [Transferred from Illinois Central on 7/12/2022.] |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Cook County Law Division, case number 2021 L 009373 (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number AILCDC-3974240), filed by Walmart Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Civil Cover Sheet)(Balog, James) [Transferred from Illinois Central on 7/12/2022.] |
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 Illinois Northern 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: Sturdivant 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: Tom Sturdivant | |
| Represented By: | Adriel E Zupances |
| 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: | James P. Balog |
| Represented By: | Lucas Sun |
| 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.
