O'Keith Gibson filed a slip-and-fall lawsuit against Walmart in Louisiana state court, alleging negligence that resulted in physical injuries including disc bulges at multiple cervical spine levels. Walmart removed the case to federal court on April 7, claiming diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332, but the retail giant's jurisdictional allegations fell short of federal requirements.
Judge Morgan ruled that Walmart failed to meet its burden of proving the case involves more than $75,000 in damages, a prerequisite for federal diversity jurisdiction. "Such generic damage allegations do not make it facially apparent that [Plaintiff's] claims exceed $75,000," Morgan wrote, rejecting Walmart's argument that Gibson's petition for damages including "past, present, and will cause future, physical pain and suffering and possible permanent disability" clearly met the threshold.
The court was particularly critical of Walmart's reliance on a settlement demand letter seeking $89,968.47, explaining that "settlement demand letters generally do not establish the minimum jurisdictional amount." As Morgan noted, "[a]ccepting [P]laintiffs' admissions that they intend to seek more than the jurisdictional minimum . . . would offer parties a tool to consent to subject matter jurisdiction, which is not permitted."
The case was originally filed in the 24th Judicial District Court for Jefferson Parish before Walmart's removal attempt. Louisiana law prohibits state court plaintiffs from claiming specific damage amounts in their petitions, requiring Gibson to allege only an "indeterminate amount" of damages in his original filing.
Walmart argued it should be "facially apparent" from Gibson's petition that damages exceeded $75,000, but the court found this insufficient given the generic nature of the allegations. The company also submitted the settlement demand detailing $75,000 in general damages, $1,154.12 in lost wages, and $13,814.35 in past medical expenses, along with MRI results showing "minimal broad-based disc bulge at the C4-5 and C6-7 levels." However, Judge Morgan ruled this evidence inadequate to establish jurisdiction.
The ruling reflects the Fifth Circuit's strict approach to removal jurisdiction, with Morgan emphasizing that "[a]mbiguities are construed against removal because the removal statute should be strictly construed in favor of remand." The court stressed its "independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party."
Walmart now has until May 8 to file an amended notice of removal with "summary-judgment-type evidence" proving the case meets federal jurisdictional requirements. If the company cannot satisfy this burden, the case will likely be remanded to Louisiana state court, where damage amount restrictions would not apply.