Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Erving v. Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division

April 29, 2015

MAY ERVING, Plaintiff,
v.
FRED'S STORES OF TENNESSEE, INC., XYZ CORP 1-10 and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING REMAND

DEBRA M. BROWN, District Judge.

This slip and fall action is before the Court on Plaintiff May Erving's Motion to Remand the case to the Circuit Court of Attala County, Mississippi. Doc. #6. Plaintiff avers that, although the parties are diverse, remand is required because Defendant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000. Defendant argues that the requisite jurisdictional amount is apparent on the face of the complaint because Plaintiff alleges that her injuries are extensive, permanent, and serious. For the reasons below, remand is granted.

I

Factual Background and Procedural History

In May of 2013, Plaintiff May Erving allegedly "slipped and fell in a liquid substance on the floor" of Defendant's store. Doc. #2 at ¶ 10. A little over one year later, Erving filed suit in the Circuit Court of Attala County against Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. ("Fred's"), XYZ Corp 1-10 and John Does 1-10, alleging unspecified "bodily injuries" that resulted from the fall. Id. at ¶ 11, ¶ 14. In addition, Erving claims that her damages include:

(a) past/present/future medical expenses;
(b) past/present/future physical pain and suffering;
(c) past/present/future mental and emotional distress;
(d) past/present/future lost wages; and/or
(e) any other relief, which the Court or jury deems just or appropriate based upon the circumstances.

Id. at ¶ 14.

In October 2014, Fred's removed the case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1332(a). Doc. #1. In its notice of removal, Fred's alleges diversity of citizenship and that "the amount in controversy... exceeds... $75, 000... as Plaintiff demands damages well in excess of the requisite jurisdictional amount." Id. at ¶ 3. It is uncontested that complete diversity of citizenship exists between the parties.[1] See Doc. #6 at 2 ("Plaintiff does not dispute the existence of complete diversity of citizenship between [the parties]."). Only the amount in controversy is in dispute.

II

Law and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.