Case 2:23-cv-22729-WJM-JRA Document 1 Filed 11/29/23 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 1
`
`
`
`JACQUELINE VILLANUEVA,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`WAL-MART STORES INC.; WALMART
`INC.; JOHN DOE 1 10 (fictitious names);
`JANE ROE 1 10 (fictitious names); ABC
`CORP. 1 10 (fictitious names); DEF
`MAINTENANCE COMPANY 1 10 (fictitious
`names),
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`
`x
`
`:
`
`:
` CASE NO.
`:
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a) and 28 U.S.C. §1441, defendants Wal-Mart Stores Inc.,
`
`and Walmart Inc (hereinafter referred to collectively as “Walmart”), by and through their
`
`attorneys, Landman Corsi, Ballaine & Ford P.C., hereby file this Notice of Removal pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and (b) and § 1446(b) and (c) to remove this action from the Superior Court
`
`of New Jersey, Passaic County Docket No. PAS-L-2963-23, to the United States District Court for
`
`the District of New Jersey. Walmart, in support thereof, states as follows:
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`This action arises out of an alleged incident that occurred while plaintiff, Jacqueline
`
`Villanueva (“plaintiff”), was shopping at a Walmart Store located at 189 US Highway 46, Saddle
`
`Brook, NJ 07663-6215, on or about October 3, 2022. See Ex. A – Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`2.
`
`On or about October 3, 2022, plaintiff alleges she sustained serious injuries when
`
`store associate operating a cart ran into her. Id. at ¶ 4.
`
`
`4867-7045-5440v.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JACQUELINE VILLANUEVA,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`WAL-MART STORES INC.; WALMART
`INC.; JOHN DOE 1 10 (fictitious names);
`JANE ROE 1 10 (fictitious names); ABC
`CORP. 1 10 (fictitious names); DEF
`MAINTENANCE COMPANY 1 10 (fictitious
`names),
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`
`x
`
`:
`
`:
` CASE NO.
`:
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a) and 28 U.S.C. §1441, defendants Wal-Mart Stores Inc.,
`
`and Walmart Inc (hereinafter referred to collectively as “Walmart”), by and through their
`
`attorneys, Landman Corsi, Ballaine & Ford P.C., hereby file this Notice of Removal pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and (b) and § 1446(b) and (c) to remove this action from the Superior Court
`
`of New Jersey, Passaic County Docket No. PAS-L-2963-23, to the United States District Court for
`
`the District of New Jersey. Walmart, in support thereof, states as follows:
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`This action arises out of an alleged incident that occurred while plaintiff, Jacqueline
`
`Villanueva (“plaintiff”), was shopping at a Walmart Store located at 189 US Highway 46, Saddle
`
`Brook, NJ 07663-6215, on or about October 3, 2022. See Ex. A – Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`2.
`
`On or about October 3, 2022, plaintiff alleges she sustained serious injuries when
`
`store associate operating a cart ran into her. Id. at ¶ 4.
`
`
`4867-7045-5440v.1
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-22729-WJM-JRA Document 1 Filed 11/29/23 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 2
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff is a resident of New Jersey residing at 509 Main Street, Apt B3, Paterson,
`
`NJ 07501. Id.
`
`II.
`
`4.
`
`BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`On or about October 30, 2023, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint
`
`in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division of Passaic County, Docket No. PAS-L-002963-
`
`23. Id.
`
`5.
`
`On or about November 2, 2023, Walmart was served with a copy of the Complaint.
`
`See Ex. B – Service of Complaint.
`
`III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
`
`6.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a matter may be removed to federal court based upon
`
`the complete diversity of citizenship of the parties.
`
`7.
`
`The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has original
`
`jurisdiction over this action based on diversity of citizenship. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the
`
`United States District Courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions when the matter in
`
`controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and is between citizens of different
`
`states.
`
`8.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), defendants have thirty (30) days, “after the
`
`receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth
`
`the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based,” to file a notice of removal.
`
`9.
`
`This Notice of Removal is being filed within thirty (30) days of when Walmart first
`
`received confirmation, through service of Plaintiff’s Complaint on November 2, 2023, from which
`
`Walmart ascertained that this matter is removable to Federal Court.
`
`
`4867-7045-5440v.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-22729-WJM-JRA Document 1 Filed 11/29/23 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 3
`
`
`
`10.
`
`For the reasons set forth more fully below, this Court has original jurisdiction under
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the properly named parties are citizens of different states, and the matter
`
`in controversy exceeds $75,000.
`
`A.
`
`THE PARTIES ARE COMPLETELY DIVERSE
`
`11.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a matter may be removed to federal court based upon
`
`the complete diversity of citizenship of the parties.
`
`12.
`
`Complete diversity of citizenship between the parties exists when “every plaintiff
`
`[is] of diverse state citizenship from every defendant.” In re Brisco, 448 F.3d 201, 215 (3d Cir.
`
`2016).
`
`13.
`
`A corporation is considered to be a citizen of its state of incorporation and the state
`
`where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c).
`
`14.
`
`Under the “nerve center” test adopted by the United States Supreme Court, a
`
`corporation’s principal place of business is the headquarters of the corporation, i.e., that “place
`
`where a corporation’s officers direct, control and coordinate the corporation’s activities.” Hertz
`
`Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010).
`
`15.
`
`“The party asserting diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of proof.” McCann v.
`
`George W. Newman Irrevocable Trust, 458 F.3d 281, 286 (3rd Cir. 2006).
`
`16.
`
`“A party generally meets this burden by proving diversity of citizenship by a
`
`preponderance of evidence.” Id. at 286.
`
`1. Citizenship of Plaintiff
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff Jacqueline Villanueva resides in New Jersey. See Ex. A.
`
`As such, it has been established by a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff
`
`is a citizen of New Jersey.
`
`
`4867-7045-5440v.1
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-22729-WJM-JRA Document 1 Filed 11/29/23 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 4
`
`
`
`2. Citizenship of Defendant Walmart Inc.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant Walmart Inc., is a citizen of Delaware, its state of incorporation, and a
`
`citizen of Arkansas, the location of its principal place of business. Thus, Walmart Inc., is a citizen
`
`of Delaware and Arkansas and the requirements of diversity jurisdiction are satisfied.
`
`3. Citizenship of Defendant Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
`
`20.
`
`Defendant Wal-Mart Stores Inc, is no longer an active entity and has been
`
`subsumed by Walmart Inc. Walmart Inc., is a citizen of Delaware, its state of incorporation, and a
`
`citizen of Arkansas, the location of its principal place of business. Thus, Walmart Inc., is a citizen
`
`of Delaware and Arkansas and the requirements of diversity jurisdiction are satisfied.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`Thus, none of the Walmart defendants are citizens of the State of New Jersey.
`
`Accordingly, complete diversity exists between the parties, and this requirement
`
`for removal based on diversity of citizenship is satisfied.
`
`B.
`
`THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS $75,000
`
`23.
`
`Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship
`
`requires that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000.
`
`24.
`
`The amount in controversy is measured by the pecuniary value of the rights being
`
`litigated. Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Commission, 423 U.S. 333, 347 (1947).
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint claims damages for permanent, physical, and mental injuries,
`
`pain and anguish, past and future wage loss, past and future medical treatment, and costs, as a
`
`result of the alleged incident. See Exh. A.
`
`26.
`
`On August 9, 2023, plaintiff issued a demand requesting $100,000 as settlement for
`
`the alleged damages asserted in this claim. See Exh. C – Plaintiff’s Demand Letter.
`
`
`4867-7045-5440v.1
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-22729-WJM-JRA Document 1 Filed 11/29/23 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 5
`
`
`
`27.
`
`To Walmart’s current understanding, plaintiff has undergone at least three (3) pain
`
`injections to her lumbar spine and has been recommended as a candidate for additional injections.
`
`Id.
`
`28. Moreover, plaintiff has approximately $18,383 in outstanding medical expenses
`
`with the potential for additional expenses which have not yet been disclosed. Id.
`
`29.
`
`Based on the foregoing, Walmart submits that the matter in controversy is in excess
`
`of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and this requirement for removal is satisfied.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Therefore, with both the existence of diversity of citizenship between the parties and the
`
`amount in controversy threshold having been satisfied, removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332
`
`and 1441.
`
`WHEREFORE, defendants Walmart Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc., respectfully request
`
`that this State Action be removed to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`LANDMAN CORSI BALLAINE & FORD P.C.
`Attorneys for Defendants Walmart, Inc. and Wal-
`Mart Stores, Inc.
`
`
`By:
`
`
`/s/ Abbey J. Luffey
`Abbey J. Luffey, Esq.
`
`Date: November 29, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4867-7045-5440v.1
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-22729-WJM-JRA Document 1 Filed 11/29/23 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 6
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 11.2
`
`I hereby certify that the matter in controversy in the above-entitled action is not now known
`
`to me to be the subject of any action pending in any court or of a pending arbitration proceeding
`
`and, to the best of my knowledge, no such actions, arbitrations, or proceedings are contemplated.
`
`
`
`LANDMAN CORSI BALLAINE & FORD P.C.
`
`
`By: /s/ Abbey J. Luffey
`Abbey J. Luffey, Esq.
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Walmart Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 29, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`4867-7045-5440v.1
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-22729-WJM-JRA Document 1 Filed 11/29/23 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 7
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`
`JACQUELINE VILLANUEVA,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`WAL-MART STORES INC.; WALMART
`INC.; JOHN DOE 1 10 (fictitious names);
`JANE ROE 1 10 (fictitious names); ABC
`CORP. 1 10 (fictitious names); DEF
`MAINTENANCE COMPANY 1 10 (fictitious
`names),
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`x
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`
`
`CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Abbey J. Luffey, hereby certify that on November 29, 2023, the foregoing Notice of
`
`
`
`Removal on behalf of Defendants, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., and Walmart Inc., was filed electronically
`
`with the Court and is available for viewing and downloading from the ECF system. I also certify
`
`that a true and correct copy was served via electronic mail on this same date on the following:
`
`Steve D. Byoun, Esq.
`The Law Offices of Fusco & Macaluso, P.C.
`150 Passaic Avenue
`P.O. Box 838
`Passaic, New Jersey 17055
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`I hereby certify that the above statements are true. I am aware that if any of the above
`
`
`
`statements by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
`
`LANDMAN CORSI BALLAINE & FORD P.C.
`
`
`By: /s/ Abbey J. Luffey
`Abbey J. Luffey, Esq.
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Walmart Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 29, 2023
`
`
`4867-7045-5440v.1
`
`7
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
