Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 04-18-2023
Case Style:
Case Number: 4:21-cv-01183
Judge: Kristine G. Baker
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Pulaski County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Jamie Marie Huffman Jones
Description: Little Rock, Arkansas personal injury lawyers represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant on a negligence theory.
This is a negligence action. On November 3, 2021, Ms. Sheppard filed a complaint against Texas Roadhouse, Mr. Walsh, and John Doe in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas. Ms. Sheppard alleges that she sustained personal injuries after contacting a diabetic lancet device in a booth at a Texas Roadhouse restaurant in North Little Rock, Arkansas (“the Restaurant”) on July 6, 2021. Ms. Sheppard alleges that she is a resident of North Little Rock, Arkansas; that Texas Roadhouse is a corporation headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky; and that Mr. Walsh is the managing partner of the Restaurant and resident of North Little Rock, Arkansas. She seeks damages “in an amount greater than the amount of damages required for Federal Court Jurisdiction in diversity of citizenship cases,” in addition to punitive damages.
On December 7, 2021, Texas Roadhouse and Mr. Walsh removed the case to this Court. In their notice of removal, Texas Roadhouse and Mr. Walsh assert that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction because Mr. Walsh was improperly joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction.[2] They maintain that Mr. Walsh was neither the managing partner of the Restaurant nor an employee of Texas Roadhouse at the time of the alleged incident and, as a result, “there is no reasonable basis in fact or law” to support Ms. Sheppard's claims against Mr. Walsh.
Ms. Sheppard now moves for remand to state court (Dkt. No. 11). Texas Roadhouse and Mr. Walsh responded in opposition (Dkt. Nos. 14-15). Ms. Sheppard also moves for an extension of time to add parties or amend pleadings following the Court's decision on the motion to remand.
Outcome: Settled for an undisclosed sum and dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: