Peabody v. Wal-Mart, et al.
This text of 2012 DNH 181 (Peabody v. Wal-Mart, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Peabody v . Wal-Mart, et a l . 12-CV-209-SM 10/16/12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Kaitlyn Peabody, Plaintiff
v. Case N o . 12-cv-209-SM Opinion N o . 2012 DNH 181 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and George Savage, Defendants
O R D E R
Plaintiff’s motion to remand (doc. n o . 3 ) is granted.
Plaintiff objects to removal on the basis that the amount in
controversy does not exceed $75,000. Her argument is probably
not supportable, but remand is warranted in any event. Under the
removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2), “[a] civil action
otherwise removable solely on the basis of [diversity
jurisdiction], . . . may not be removed if any of the parties in
interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of
the State in which such action is brought.” Here, defendant
George Savage is a citizen of New Hampshire.
That defect is procedural in nature, and may, therefore, be
waived. Samaan v . S t . Joseph Hosp., 670 F.3d 2 1 , 28 (1st Cir.
2012) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). A plaintiff waives the
Section 1442(b)(2) requirement where she “proceed[s] in federal court without objection.” Stromberg v . Costello, 456 F. Supp.
848, 849 (D. Mass. 1978). Here, although the plaintiff advances
an argument in support of remand that misses the mark, there is
no question that she is objecting to removal and is not
voluntarily proceeding in this federal forum. Compare Samaan,
670 F.3d at 28 (finding waiver where plaintiff, in addition to
“not rais[ing] the defendants’ Maine citizenship in support of
his motion to remand,” also “litigated the case for years”).
Accordingly, the court finds that removal was defective and
plaintiff has not waived the defect. Her motion to remand (doc.
n o . 3 ) is granted.
SO ORDERED.
Steven J. McAuliffe 'United States District Judge October 16, 2012
cc: Richard E. Fradette, Esq. Christopher B. Kaczmarek, Esq.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2012 DNH 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peabody-v-wal-mart-et-al-nhd-2012.