Ryba v. Walmart Inc #643
| Mellisa D Ryba |
| Walmart Inc #643 |
| 4:2023cv06421 |
| December 11, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| R Bryan Harwell |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal-Personal Injury |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 6, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 21 ***DOCUMENT MAILED #19 Remand Order placed in U.S. Mail from Florence Clerks Office to Horry County Clerk of Court PO Box 677 Conway, SC 29528-0677. (Attachments: #1 NEF for Remand Order) (hcic, ) |
| Filing 20 ***DOCUMENT E-MAILED #19 Remand Order to Horry County Clerk of Court, elvisr@horrycounty.org. (Attachments: #1 NEF for Remand Order, #2 Certified copy of Remand Order) (hcic, ) |
Filing 19
ORDER OF REMAND. Signed by Chief Judge R Bryan Harwell on 2/5/2024. (hcic, )
|
| Filing 18 STIPULATION for Removal to State Court by Mellisa D Ryba. (DuRant, Ross) |
|
Filing 16
TEXT ORDER. On December 18, 2023, this Court entered a Sua Sponte Text Order questioning whether this Court had jurisdiction based on questions surrounding the amount in controversy. On January 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a response in which Plaintiff indicated "[A]t the time of filing this lawsuit in state court, Plaintiff did not assert an amount in controversy greater than $75,000, and Defendant has not met its burden of proof that the jurisdictional threshold is met." ECF No. 11 at p. 5. However, this is not a binding stipulation and it provides for loopholes through which Plaintiff could potentially recover more than $75,000 from a state court jury. Below is a sample of binding stipulation language that would justify remand in this Court's view. If Plaintiff is willing to execute and file a stipulation of the following italicized language, the Court will remand this matter to state court. Plaintiff hereby irrevocably stipulates that the amount in controversy in this matter was, at the time of filing this suit in the Court of Common Pleas for Horry County, South Carolina, limited to no more than Seventy Four Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Nine Dollars ($74,999.00). Plaintiff further stipulates that she will at no time move to amend the complaint to seek an amount in excess of $74,999.00, and shall not otherwise ask for damages in excess of that amount. If a jury returns a verdict in excess of that amount, the state court shall be required and authorized to reduce the verdict to that amount, i.e. $74,999.00. Plaintiff further agrees that she will not attempt to collect on any judgment rendered in excess of $74,999.00 in the event a verdict is rendered exceeding this amount. This stipulation is and shall remain binding on all parties while this matter is pending in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina and shall remain binding at all times in the future when this matter may be pending in the Court of Common Pleas for Horry County, South Carolina, if remanded to that court. AND IT IS SO STIPULATED, signed by attorney for the Plaintiff. Any stipulation shall be filed within 5 days of the date of this Order. To the extent Plaintiff does not wish to stipulate as such, this Court will seek further clarification from the parties regarding Defendant's contention that Defendant's proper name is Walmart Inc. and the proper party in interest is Wal-Mart Stores East, LP based on Defendant's assertion that Walmart, Inc., #643 is not a legal entity incorporated in South Carolina and there is not an LLC by any similar name. See ECF No. 12. This will include clarification as to the citizenship of any partners of Wal-Mart Stores East, LP and as to whether Plaintiff intends to proceed against Wal-Mart, Inc., #643, or Wal-Mart Stores East, LP and/or Walmart Inc. Signed by Chief Judge R. Bryan Harwell on 1/31/2024. (hbro, )
|
| Filing 15 Joint Rule 26(f) Report by Walmart Inc #643.(Baer, Laura) |
| Filing 14 Joint Rule 26 Outline of Discovery Plan by Walmart Inc #643.(Baer, Laura) |
| Filing 13 Joint Local Rule 26.03 Answers to Interrogatories by Walmart Inc #643.(Baer, Laura) |
| Filing 12 AFFIDAVIT in Support re #11 Affidavit in Opposition by Walmart Inc #643. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 SC SOS Entity Search, #2 Exhibit 2 Presuit Demand, #3 Exhibit 3 OrthoSC Record, #4 Exhibit 4 Email 8-23-22, #5 Exhibit 5 Email 4-6-23, #6 Exhibit 6 Email 11-29-23)(Baer, Laura) |
| Filing 11 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re #8 Response to Order to Show Cause by Mellisa D Ryba. (DuRant, Ross) Modified on 1/5/2024 to edit text (hcic, ). |
|
Filing 10
TEXT ORDER extending with consent of both parties Plaintiff's deadline to respond to Defendant's Brief in Support of Removal. Plaintiff's response now due January 5, 2024. Signed by Chief Judge R. Bryan Harwell on 12/27/2024. (hbro, )
|
| Filing 9 LETTER EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER Mellisa D Ryba answer due 1/5/2024. (DuRant, Ross) |
| Filing 8 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Walmart Inc #643. (Baer, Laura) |
|
Filing 6
SUA SPONTE TEXT ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: The Defendant removed this case from state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441 and 1446. Under 1441(a), a defendant is permitted to remove a case to federal court if the court would have had original jurisdiction over the matter. District courts have original jurisdiction "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between... citizens of different States." 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1). In the instant case, the Defendant bases federal jurisdiction upon diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 1332. However, the Plaintiff did not specify any monetary amount of damages or clearly allege the jurisdictional amount in the Complaint, and the Defendant's notice of removal fails to allege facts adequate to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount. Thus, the amount in controversy is unclear, and this Court may lack diversity jurisdiction.Removal statutes are strictly construed against removal, and any doubts concerning the propriety of removal must be resolved in favor of retained state court jurisdiction. Marshall v. Manville Sales Corp. , 6 F.3d 229, 232 (4th Cir. 1993). In addition,"[t]he party seeking removal bears the burden of demonstrating that removal jurisdiction is proper." In Re Blackwater Security Consulting, LLC, 460 F.3d 576, 583 (4th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). This includes establishing compliance with the removal statute requirements. See Marler v. Amoco Oil Co. , 793 F. Supp. 656, 658-59 (E.D.N.C. 1992). Courts must narrowly interpret removal jurisdiction because of the significant federalism concerns that are raised by removing proceedings from state court. Id. Thus, all doubts are resolved in favor of remand. See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941); see also Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chems. Co., Inc. , 29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 1994). THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, not later than five calendar days from the filing of this Order, Defendant shall brief the Court and SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be remanded to the State court for the foregoing reasons. Plaintiff shall file a response not later than five calendar days thereafter and, in that response, include a clarification as to whether Plaintiff intended to pursue, at the time of filing the original complaint, damages in excess of the jurisdictional amount of $75,000. If Plaintiff did not intend to pursue damages adequate to satisfy the jurisdictional threshold at the time of filing and if Plaintiff stipulates to such limitation having a binding effect, the Court will remand this matter to state court.Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiff's case. Signed by Chief Judge R Bryan Harwell on 12/18/2023. (hbro, )
|
|
Filing 5
CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING ORDER: Rule 26(f) Conference Deadline 1/3/2024, 26(a) Initial Disclosures due by 1/17/2024, Rule 26 Report due by 1/17/2024, Motions to Amend Pleadings due by 3/11/2024, Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 4/9/2024, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 5/9/2024, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 5/9/2024, Discovery due by 7/8/2024, Motions due by 7/23/2024, Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures due by 9/5/2024, ADR Statement due by 7/21/2024, Mediation Due by 8/21/2024. Motions in limine must be filed at least three weeks prior to the date set for jury selection. Responses to motions in limine shall be filed within seven (7) days after the motion is filed. Parties shall furnish the Court pretrial briefs seven (7) days prior to the date set for jury selection. This case is subject to being called for jury selection and/or trial on or after 11/7/2024. Signed by Chief Judge R Bryan Harwell on 12/11/2023. (hcic, )
|
| Filing 4 ANSWER to Complaint (Notice of Removal) by Walmart Inc #643. (hcic, ) |
| Filing 3 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Walmart Inc #643. (hcic, ) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Horry County Court of Common Pleas, case number 2023-CP-26-06940 (filing fee $405 receipt number ASCDC-11472640), filed by Walmart Inc #643. (Attachments: #1 State Court Documents, #2 Service of Process) (hcic, ) |
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 South Carolina 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: Ryba v. Walmart Inc #643 | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Mellisa D Ryba | |
| Represented By: | Ross Conard DuRant |
| 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 #643 | |
| Represented By: | Laura Ruth Baer |
| 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.
