United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Oxford Division
M. BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
slip-and-fall action is before the Court for review of
subject matter jurisdiction.
March 19, 2019, Jerry Hamm filed in the Circuit Court of
Union County, Mississippi, a complaint against Wal-Mart
Stores East, LP, and Aramark Corporation. Doc. #2. Hamm
asserts a negligence claim based on unspecified injuries and
“severe pain and suffering” allegedly caused by a
fall at the Wal-Mart store in New Albany, Mississippi.
Id. at 2. Hamm's complaint seeks recovery of
past and future medical expenses, other compensatory damages,
and post-judgment interest. Id. at 4.
17, 2019, Wal-Mart, relying on diversity jurisdiction,
removed Hamm's state court action to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. Doc.
#1. In its notice of removal, Wal-Mart asserts the $75, 000
amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied because Hamm
denied various requests for admission related to the value of
his claim. Id. at 4- 6.
26, 2019, this Court, noting that a denial of a request for
admission, standing alone, is insufficient to satisfy the
amount-in-controversy requirement,  issued an order for Wal-Mart
to show cause why this case should not be remanded for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. Doc.#25. Wal-Mart and
Aramark each filed a response to the show cause
order. Docs. #27, #28.
as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil
action brought in a State court of which the district courts
of the United States have original jurisdiction may be
removed … to the district court of the United States
… embracing the place where such action is
pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). However,
“[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that
the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the
case shall be remanded.” Id. § 1447(c).
1332, the diversity jurisdiction statute, requires both
complete diversity and an amount in controversy in excess of
$75, 000. Allen v. Walmart Stores, L.L.C., 907 F.3d
170, 183 (5th Cir. 2018). Complete diversity requires that
“all persons on one side of the controversy be citizens
of different states than all persons on the other
side.” Moss v. Princip, 913 F.3d 508, 514 (5th
Cir. 2019). Where, as here, “a complaint alleges an
unspecified amount of damages, the party invoking diversity
jurisdiction must show by a preponderance of the evidence
that the amount-in-controversy requirement is met.”
Brand Servs., L.L.C. v. Irex Corp., 909 F.3d 151,
155 (5th Cir. 2018). To satisfy this standard, a party may
show that “it is facially apparent from the complaint
that the claims exceed the jurisdictional amount” or
may “rely on summary judgment-type evidence to
ascertain the amount in controversy.” Id.
(alterations omitted). “Any doubts regarding whether
removal jurisdiction is proper should be resolved against
federal jurisdiction.” Vantage Drilling Co. v.
Hsin-Chi Su, 741 F.3d 535, 537 (5th Cir. 2014)
(quotation marks omitted).
argues that the preponderance standard is satisfied under
both the facially apparent test and the summary judgment
evidence inquiry. Doc. #28 at 3-4. Wal-Mart argues only ...