Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_06-cv-00381/USCOURTS-almd-1_06-cv-00381-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Denise Blalock
Plaintiff
Wal-Mart Stores East, LP
Defendant
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

DENISE BLALOCK, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 

) 1:06cV381-MHT

WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, ) (WO)

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This lawsuit, which was removed from state court to

federal court based on diversity-of-citizenship

jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, is now before the

court on plaintiff Denise Blalock’s motion to remand.

Blalock contends that removal is improper both because

there is not true diversity of citizenship and because

the amount in controversy is insufficient to confer

federal jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, the

court concludes that Blalock’s motion should be denied.

Case 1:06-cv-00381-MHT-WC Document 19 Filed 06/16/06 Page 1 of 6
1. The original complaint misidentified the

defendant as Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. The parties agree

that the correct defendant is Wal-Mart Stores East, LP.

2

A federal court may assert jurisdiction where the

amount in controversy exceeds $ 75,000, exclusive of

costs and interests, and the parties are citizens of

different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Complete

diversity is lacking where any party on one side of the

suit is from the same state as any party on the other

side. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806). The

party seeking removal has the burden of establishing

jurisdiction. Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092,

1095 (11th Cir. 1994). 

The defendant in this case, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP,

is a limited partnership.1

 For purposes of diversity of

citizenship, a limited partnership is a citizen of each

State in which any of its partners, limited or general,

are citizens. Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH

Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1021 (11th Cir. 2004)

(citing Carden v. Arkoma Assoc., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96,

Case 1:06-cv-00381-MHT-WC Document 19 Filed 06/16/06 Page 2 of 6
2. Defendant’s disclosure of corporate affiliations

and other entities with a direct financial interest in

litigation (Doc. No. 10).

3

(1990)). At the time Blalock, a citizen of Alabama,

filed her motion for remand, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP had

not shown that each of its partners were citizens of a

State other than Alabama. 

Since that time, however, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

has met its burden by showing that it is a limited

partnership organized under the laws of Delaware and

having its principal place of business in Arkansas, of

which WSE Management, LLC is the 1 % general partner and

WSE Investment, LLC is the 99 % limited partner. Both

WSE Management, LLC and WSE Investment, LLC are

incorporated under the laws of Delaware and have their

principal place of business in Arkansas.2

 Complete

diversity of citizenship therefore exists in this case.

Blalock also insists that Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

has not met its burden of showing by a preponderance of

the evidence that the amount in controversy is greater

Case 1:06-cv-00381-MHT-WC Document 19 Filed 06/16/06 Page 3 of 6
4

than $ 75,000. Blalock’s complaint asserts that Wal-Mart

Stores East, LP negligently or wantonly caused or failed

to prevent her fall on the premises of a Wal-Mart store,

as a result of which she allegedly suffered injuries

including contusions to her wrist and knees, trauma and

loss of function in her thumb, head injury, and multiple

bruises. The complaint asserts that Blalock was

permanently injured, has suffered mental anguish and

emotional distress, and seeks compensatory damages and

punitive damages in a sum in excess of $ 10,000.

“[W]here a plaintiff has made an unspecified demand

for damages in state court, a removing defendant must

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount

in controversy more likely than not exceeds [the

jurisdictional limit].” Tapscott v. MS Dealer Serv.

Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1357 (11th Cir. 1996), overruled on

other grounds, Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., 204 F.3d 1069

(11th Cir. 2000). 

Case 1:06-cv-00381-MHT-WC Document 19 Filed 06/16/06 Page 4 of 6
5

Wal-Mart Stores East, LP has submitted medical bills

incurred by Blalock from Houston Medical Group, Flowers

Hospital, and Southern Bone and Joint. These bills

relate to treatments undergone by Blalock after her fall,

and total $ 81,778.89. While Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

does not concede that the charges are related to

treatments for alleged injuries resulting from the fall,

it is clear that Blalock has undergone significant

medical treatment after a fall that she claims caused

multiple physical injuries, and that the cost for this

treatment exceeds the jurisdictional threshhold of

$ 75,000. The court notes that in addition to recovery

of her medical expenses, Blalock’s complaint seeks

punitive and compensatory damages for pain and suffering,

mental anguish and emotional distress. 

In light of the medical record and the allegations of

Blalock’s complaint, the court concludes that Wal-Mart

Stores East, LP has proven by a preponderance of the

Case 1:06-cv-00381-MHT-WC Document 19 Filed 06/16/06 Page 5 of 6
evidence that the amount in controversy in this case

exceeds $ 75,000. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff Denise

Blalock’s motion to remand (Doc. 4) is denied. 

DONE, this the 16th day of June, 2006.

_____________________________ /s/ Myron H. Thompson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00381-MHT-WC Document 19 Filed 06/16/06 Page 6 of 6